|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 11, 2020 0:20:34 GMT
Their colleague at SkyAdam Boulton has had a few words to say apparently Couldn't happen to a nicer pair!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 11, 2020 0:30:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 11, 2020 7:36:59 GMT
My Mrs was due to start her new job at North Staffs Hospital today but a couple of days ago had a dry cough. She went for a lateral flow test which came back negative. Yesterday she lost smell and taste so went for a proper test. It’s come back positive. What’s the point of the lateral flow test is my question. Stop knicker wetting HB, nothing to see here ... More mass testing for healthy citizens that will result in ever more incorrect positive tests. I wonder what the rate of false positives missing 14 days of school plus isolating your family versus finding an asymptomatic case. Are the parents supposed to leave work everytime a false positive comes in? They'd be better testing the over 65s every day rather than school kids.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 11, 2020 7:48:58 GMT
I think you two have been out in the sun for too long without a hat I think everything that Andy has written there, is absolutely on point. Pick out the bits that you disagree with and I'll be more than happy to debate you on it. Well if you have a positive test there is a good chance you have Covid, if you have Covid you may become ill, if you become ill you may go to hospital, if you get more ill you'll finish up in ICU, and ultimately from there you may turn up your toes That's kind of how it works, that's why we registered 500 dead bodies yesterday and each and every day after cases began to rise again in September. If I missed any nuances to this in the earlier debate then I apologise.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Dec 11, 2020 7:57:45 GMT
Look at the actual data for positive cases in people over 60. We need to shut up shop until end of January in my opinion. Xmas? Who cares... Lockdown properly for another two months and get this clucker out of the way. Business basically shuts down for this time anyway. I grant you hospitality has suffered horrendously.. Give them a whopping wedge and a future inducement of cheapo meals and drinks in the spring. We take one step forward and then two back. Christmas days off ... meal deals in the late summer ??? WTF. What businesses basically shut down until the end of January?
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 11, 2020 8:20:40 GMT
I think everything that Andy has written there, is absolutely on point. Pick out the bits that you disagree with and I'll be more than happy to debate you on it. Well if you have a positive test there is a good chance you have Covid, if you have Covid you may become ill, if you become ill you may go to hospital, if you get more ill you'll finish up in ICU, and ultimately from there you may turn up your toes That's kind of how it works, that's why we registered 500 dead bodies yesterday and each and every day after cases began to rise again in September. If I missed any nuances to this in the earlier debate then I apologise. Because firstly a positive test isn't a good chance to have Covid-19 It's not even close to saying you do, you might possibly, so take another test. But we don't we isolate and wait and just disappear into the stats. They can do this time and again. We have no idea how many individuals fall into that category. After all the other ifs and maybes in the paragraph above it's approx 0.008% that you reach the end of your point and die. There is no correlation other than perhaps to say some people who might have died of Covid-19 also had a positive test within 28 days. That's your 500 people. There isn't even an agreed pathology for the deaths. Since every day the test quantity and death figures are assumed to be in tune. The ratio and quantity and implementation of PCR to LFT results in huge variables. To put it a different way 99.992% ish plus a margin of error of people who have had a positive test will not die of Covid-19.So basing public policy on positive tests per population is misleading. Edit: and if they now start testing kids at school your TV will report an increase in positive test results, none of which will die.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 11, 2020 9:17:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Dec 11, 2020 9:45:47 GMT
I get more and more convinced everyday that schools(parents picking them up) is the main spread of this virus having witnessed what I’ve done of late.I also notice the main bulk of infections is in the 11 to 18 year olds in London. Bayern was right all along🤔😄 Where i live(West Lancashire) we have had very few cases but every case i know of involves a person who works in education or care homes, my grand-daughter was sent home to isolate after a teaching assistant tested positive so she now along with her brother and mother are in isolation which ends just in time for Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 11, 2020 10:00:54 GMT
Massive jump in cases darn sarf yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 11, 2020 10:06:18 GMT
If they tested those people with PCR it was inevitably going to find HIV fragments. Doesn't say how they tested but this was the point made yesterday in the video by Mullis.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 11, 2020 10:41:45 GMT
Apart from a tiny blip in August, the number of deaths in the capital have, since the Spring, been below the five year average. But hey ... let's bankrupt more businesses, make even more people unemployed, create even more poverty and destroy the education of millions of kids, just to be on the safe side, eh? We don't seem to get our narrative away from cases as the driver of policy. These aren't cases they are positive tests. When will we start deciding our policy on something genuinely tangible. We now know admissions aren't even a useful measure anymore. The mass testing has ruined our ability to decide anything useful. We have too many tests of healthy citizens of variable quantity and quality. We can't even use deaths anymore because even they are not defined appropriately. There are no numbers in the system that have any useful prediction capability because we've broken the basic rules of experimental science. Even a high school student knows not to vary the parameters as we have and worse still bring in eroneous confounding variables. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, any analysis based on findings from uncontrolled variables can create an incorrect reading of a link between two variables. Positive tests and people dying from Covid-19 have no correlation, there is NO LINK It's total pseudoscience and the public and politicians are basing everything on positive tests per population. It's totally wrong. You are right in that not all positive tests mean someone is going to be ill from covid or be infectious and if public policy was based on assuming tests are 100% accurate this would be a problem. However the government and those involved in making policy know full well the tests are not 100% accurate and providing they have an idea of the level of accuracy (which they do - see here) they can factor this into any assessment of the risk and adjust policy accordingly. You are right in that in order to produce a reliable scientific theory you have to control all relevant variables and this is hard but possible in a lab. However you cannot control all variables out in the real world so having the same expectations of real world testing as laboratory testing is just unrealistic. It is also not even necessary. The aim of laboratory based testing is to produce a bullet proof scientific theory. The aim of real world testing is to be just good enough to produce models to guide public health policy - it's one off, subject to change and never going to be taught in schools as one of the pillars of scientific theory. Unlike a scientific theory the models do not have to be 100% accurate to be useful. The key is knowing the degree of accuracy and factoring this into your decision making. You seem to be suggesting that the government use cases (i.e. people who are ill from covid) to determine policy. This is bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. If actual cases are markedly on the rise you've lost control of the situation - to have got to that point there will be a large number of people transmitting the virus. The number of hospital admissions will be on rise, the health service will be stretched and on the way to breakdown, deaths will rise and you've got a massive problem trying to bring infections back under control. This is exactly where we were in March/April - the government had lost control of infections and had no choice but to manage the number of deaths Going back to using cases (or worse still deaths) as the determinant of public policy would be a disaster. You are assuming that government and public health policy makers are making naive assumptions about the data and models they have to hand. They aren't - they know they aren't 100% accurate and are making decisions accordingly. Suggesting that the government abandon their models because they do not conform to lab based conditions would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths for the sake of an inappropriate and unachievable level of accuracy in the data.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 11, 2020 11:08:53 GMT
Well if you have a positive test there is a good chance you have Covid, if you have Covid you may become ill, if you become ill you may go to hospital, if you get more ill you'll finish up in ICU, and ultimately from there you may turn up your toes That's kind of how it works, that's why we registered 500 dead bodies yesterday and each and every day after cases began to rise again in September. If I missed any nuances to this in the earlier debate then I apologise. Because firstly a positive test isn't a good chance to have Covid-19 It's not even close to saying you do, you might possibly, so take another test. But we don't we isolate and wait and just disappear into the stats. They can do this time and again. We have no idea how many individuals fall into that category. After all the other ifs and maybes in the paragraph above it's approx 0.008% that you reach the end of your point and die. There is no correlation other than perhaps to say some people who might have died of Covid-19 also had a positive test within 28 days. That's your 500 people. There isn't even an agreed pathology for the deaths. Since every day the test quantity and death figures are assumed to be in tune. The ratio and quantity and implementation of PCR to LFT results in huge variables. To put it a different way 99.992% ish plus a margin of error of people who have had a positive test will not die of Covid-19.So basing public policy on positive tests per population is misleading. Edit: and if they now start testing kids at school your TV will report an increase in positive test results, none of which will die. Well let's see shall we. Positive tests are rising in London right now. So let's agree to take a look between us in 6 weeks time towards the end of January and see if the capital is serving up more dead bodies. It will be as sure as night follows day. Just as the sharp rise in September and October in positive tests has seen the body count rise in November and December from single figures to nearly 500 a day. To suggest anything else is a nonsense. I'm having to pinch myself that I've even got engaged in this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Dec 11, 2020 11:11:34 GMT
If you have a moral objection about using a medication developed using human cells, be they aborted foetus cells or paediatric/adult cells from deceased donors I’ve got bad news for you, nearly every medication developed since the isolation of the HeLa cell line in the 50s (which is a fascinating story in itself, detailed in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks) will have used them or a variation of them at the pre-clinical stage. Most of them originate from the 60s and 70s and have been in use from these dates and are grown up from the original donor. So the cells now in use were not literally taken from a foetus, they are the derivatives of the cells taken from the foetal donor.
The issue is saying the vaccine “contains” these cells, it doesn’t, they (in this case a cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney line 293, HEK293) are used to propagate the Adenovirus contained within the Oxford vaccine, the virus is then extracted and purified from these cells before being put in the jab.
I can understand the moral objections, it’s just this only seems to crop up during conversations about vaccines, HEK293 cells have been used for example to probe the long term effects of paracetamol usage and the mechanism of action for instance. The reason why chilli causes your mouth to burn, capsaicin activation of the TRPV1 receptor was discovered because they used HEK293 cells (Catarina et al. 1997) to express neuronal receptors and checked which one fired. Capsaicin patches have since been proposed and used as treatments for chronic pain by causing this receptor to constantly fire, essentially overloading in and inactivating it, but I don’t see anyone arguing whether it’s moral to use them.
Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, not using viral inactivation or a viral vector for delivery of their mRNA package do not use this method for vaccine propagation.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 11, 2020 11:35:29 GMT
If you have a moral objection about using a medication developed using human cells, be they aborted foetus cells or paediatric/adult cells from deceased donors I’ve got bad news for you, nearly every medication developed since the isolation of the HeLa cell line in the 50s (which is a fascinating story in itself, detailed in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks) will have used them or a variation of them at the pre-clinical stage. Most of them originate from the 60s and 70s and have been in use from these dates and are grown up from the original donor. So the cells now in use were not literally taken from a foetus, they are the derivatives of the cells taken from the foetal donor. The issue is saying the vaccine “contains” these cells, it doesn’t, they (in this case a cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney line 293, HEK293) are used to propagate the Adenovirus contained within the Oxford vaccine, the virus is then extracted and purified from these cells before being put in the jab. I can understand the moral objections, it’s just this only seems to crop up during conversations about vaccines, HEK293 cells have been used for example to probe the long term effects of paracetamol usage and the mechanism of action for instance. The reason why chilli causes your mouth to burn, capsaicin activation of the TRPV1 receptor was discovered because they used HEK293 cells (Catarina et al. 1997) to express neuronal receptors and checked which one fired. Capsaicin patches have since been proposed and used as treatments for chronic pain by causing this receptor to constantly fire, essentially overloading in and inactivating it, but I don’t see anyone arguing whether it’s moral to use them. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, not using viral inactivation or a viral vector for delivery of their mRNA package do not use this method for vaccine propagation. All very well but did our Space Lizard overlords wash their hands during the manufacturing process? And if so is there a website that proves it?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Dec 11, 2020 11:56:17 GMT
If they tested those people with PCR it was inevitably going to find HIV fragments. Doesn't say how they tested but this was the point made yesterday in the video by Mullis. They were likely tested for the presence of HIV antibodies being as though it’s an interaction with gp41 and they said they developed antibodies towards it which PCR wouldn’t tell you. Mullis was arguing the point about HIV not being the causative agent of AIDS, which was obviously a massive discussion in the 90s and informed the disastrous policies of South Africa under Mbeki (who denied retorviral provision, likely killing thousands needlessly.) But the fact is the man designed PCR for diagnostic purposes, he patented it and used that explicit language. This concept that he didn’t design it with diagnostics in mind (which is becoming de rigueur on twitter is not true at all, he just didn’t believe a positive HIV pcr test was proof of it being the causative agent of AIDS because he believed that it was just demonstration of proof of a fragment of a retrovirus that exists in humans. Here’s the actual patent he filed: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ec/14/bf/0a414f77b2d203/US4683195.pdfThere is regular reference to diagnostic applications for both viruses and bacteria by detecting nucleic acids of the causative agents.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 11, 2020 12:02:32 GMT
If they tested those people with PCR it was inevitably going to find HIV fragments. Doesn't say how they tested but this was the point made yesterday in the video by Mullis. They were likely tested for the presence of HIV antibodies being as though it’s an interaction with gp41 and they said they developed antibodies towards it which PCR wouldn’t tell you. Mullis was arguing the point about HIV not being the causative agent of AIDS, which was obviously a massive discussion in the 90s and informed the disastrous policies of South Africa under Mbeki (who denied retorviral provision, likely killing thousands needlessly.) But the fact is the man designed PCR for diagnostic purposes, he patented it and used that explicit language. This concept that he didn’t design it with diagnostics in mind is not true at all, he just didn’t believe a positive HIV pcr test was proof of it being the causative agent of AIDS because he believed that it was just demonstration of proof of a fragment of a retrovirus that exists in humans. Here’s the actual patent he filed: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ec/14/bf/0a414f77b2d203/US4683195.pdfThere is regular reference to diagnostic applications for both viruses and bacteria by detecting nucleic acids of the causative agents. Understand. I was just wondering if they had been daft enough to use PCR which could multiply some of the HIV that had been used in the vaccine design, which it could do. So they had seen a HIV remnant. It didn't say how they tested the recipients so it wasn't clear.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 11, 2020 12:15:16 GMT
Because firstly a positive test isn't a good chance to have Covid-19 It's not even close to saying you do, you might possibly, so take another test. But we don't we isolate and wait and just disappear into the stats. They can do this time and again. We have no idea how many individuals fall into that category. After all the other ifs and maybes in the paragraph above it's approx 0.008% that you reach the end of your point and die. There is no correlation other than perhaps to say some people who might have died of Covid-19 also had a positive test within 28 days. That's your 500 people. There isn't even an agreed pathology for the deaths. Since every day the test quantity and death figures are assumed to be in tune. The ratio and quantity and implementation of PCR to LFT results in huge variables. To put it a different way 99.992% ish plus a margin of error of people who have had a positive test will not die of Covid-19.So basing public policy on positive tests per population is misleading. Edit: and if they now start testing kids at school your TV will report an increase in positive test results, none of which will die. Well let's see shall we. Positive tests are rising in London right now. So let's agree to take a look between us in 6 weeks time towards the end of January and see if the capital is serving up more dead bodies. It will be as sure as night follows day. Just as the sharp rise in September and October in positive tests has seen the body count rise in November and December from single figures to nearly 500 a day. To suggest anything else is a nonsense. Why is it a nonsense? If I test 5000 additional members of the public some of which will never be in any danger to see case rates go up and have no impact at all on deaths. The only measure that matters anymore is acute bed occupancy. That's what we should be doing as a KPI. If acute bed occupancy was on the news every night by reason got occupancy we could all do something about it. It would be obvious to most people that they could take a flu jab, stop drink driving and isolate effectively from real Covid symptoms. They'd be motivated to behave to protect the NHS and selfishly make sure there was a bed available if needed for themselves and loved ones. The reason it is not on the news is that it would draw attention to the fact that the government has failed it's duty to the NHS. At least acute bed occupancy as a 5 year average would show us the real scale of the pandemic. Positive test numbers tell us nothing. They were on the right lines in April. They then abandoned that measure in favour of counting test results.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 11, 2020 12:29:13 GMT
So with the announcement that the self isolation period is to be reduced to 10 days from 14 days does anyone know if it applies to people currently in isolation? I’m on day 2. Can’t see it mentioned anywhere on the news.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Dec 11, 2020 12:35:47 GMT
So with the announcement that the self isolation period is to be reduced to 10 days from 14 days does anyone know if it applies to people currently in isolation? I’m on day 2. Can’t see it mentioned anywhere on the news.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 11, 2020 12:52:01 GMT
So with the announcement that the self isolation period is to be reduced to 10 days from 14 days does anyone know if it applies to people currently in isolation? I’m on day 2. Can’t see it mentioned anywhere on the news. Thanks👍🏻
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 11, 2020 12:55:44 GMT
Because firstly a positive test isn't a good chance to have Covid-19 It's not even close to saying you do, you might possibly, so take another test. But we don't we isolate and wait and just disappear into the stats. They can do this time and again. We have no idea how many individuals fall into that category. After all the other ifs and maybes in the paragraph above it's approx 0.008% that you reach the end of your point and die. There is no correlation other than perhaps to say some people who might have died of Covid-19 also had a positive test within 28 days. That's your 500 people. There isn't even an agreed pathology for the deaths. Since every day the test quantity and death figures are assumed to be in tune. The ratio and quantity and implementation of PCR to LFT results in huge variables. To put it a different way 99.992% ish plus a margin of error of people who have had a positive test will not die of Covid-19.So basing public policy on positive tests per population is misleading. Edit: and if they now start testing kids at school your TV will report an increase in positive test results, none of which will die. Well let's see shall we. Positive tests are rising in London right now. So let's agree to take a look between us in 6 weeks time towards the end of January and see if the capital is serving up more dead bodies. It will be as sure as night follows day. Just as the sharp rise in September and October in positive tests has seen the body count rise in November and December from single figures to nearly 500 a day. To suggest anything else is a nonsense. I'm having to pinch myself that I've even got engaged in this discussion. What do you make of the CDC report that I posted yesterday which states that just 6% of Covid-related deaths in the USA mention only Covid on death certificates? The rest of the deaths involved nearly three more causes of deaths or conditions. I think it's safe to assume that the same is happening in the UK. You seem to be under the impression that the people who are passing away (or stiffs as you so eloquently put it the other week) are perfect specimens of health cut down in the prime of life by this deadly disease which every single person in the world is susceptible to. Oh, and it's not 500 deaths a day. oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/6995639
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 11, 2020 14:01:59 GMT
We don't seem to get our narrative away from cases as the driver of policy. These aren't cases they are positive tests. When will we start deciding our policy on something genuinely tangible. We now know admissions aren't even a useful measure anymore. The mass testing has ruined our ability to decide anything useful. We have too many tests of healthy citizens of variable quantity and quality. We can't even use deaths anymore because even they are not defined appropriately. There are no numbers in the system that have any useful prediction capability because we've broken the basic rules of experimental science. Even a high school student knows not to vary the parameters as we have and worse still bring in eroneous confounding variables. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, any analysis based on findings from uncontrolled variables can create an incorrect reading of a link between two variables. Positive tests and people dying from Covid-19 have no correlation, there is NO LINK It's total pseudoscience and the public and politicians are basing everything on positive tests per population. It's totally wrong. You are right in that not all positive tests mean someone is going to be ill from covid or be infectious and if public policy was based on assuming tests are 100% accurate this would be a problem. However the government and those involved in making policy know full well the tests are not 100% accurate and providing they have an idea of the level of accuracy (which they do - see here) they can factor this into any assessment of the risk and adjust policy accordingly. You are right in that in order to produce a reliable scientific theory you have to control all relevant variables and this is hard but possible in a lab. However you cannot control all variables out in the real world so having the same expectations of real world testing as laboratory testing is just unrealistic. It is also not even necessary. The aim of laboratory based testing is to produce a bullet proof scientific theory. The aim of real world testing is to be just good enough to produce models to guide public health policy - it's one off, subject to change and never going to be taught in schools as one of the pillars of scientific theory. Unlike a scientific theory the models do not have to be 100% accurate to be useful. The key is knowing the degree of accuracy and factoring this into your decision making. You seem to be suggesting that the government use cases (i.e. people who are ill from covid) to determine policy. This is bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. If actual cases are markedly on the rise you've lost control of the situation - to have got to that point there will be a large number of people transmitting the virus. The number of hospital admissions will be on rise, the health service will be stretched and on the way to breakdown, deaths will rise and you've got a massive problem trying to bring infections back under control. This is exactly where we were in March/April - the government had lost control of infections and had no choice but to manage the number of deaths Going back to using cases (or worse still deaths) as the determinant of public policy would be a disaster. You are assuming that government and public health policy makers are making naive assumptions about the data and models they have to hand. They aren't - they know they aren't 100% accurate and are making decisions accordingly. Suggesting that the government abandon their models because they do not conform to lab based conditions would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths for the sake of an inappropriate and unachievable level of accuracy in the data. That's a reasonable response but to a slightly different point than I was making. I think we agree in 90%. My response was a reaction to the thread where Benji suggested that yesterday's 20k daily cases meant we jump into lockdown quick smart. Paul pointed out that there was no need to do so based on a richer interpretation of the data, exactly what you are advocating and I support. Unfortunately as I said in my opening sentence "We don't seem to get our narrative away from cases as the driver of policy". That's a 'we' collective not a them singular. The BBC and other MSM outlets insist, wrongly in my view, of flashing up a graphic every night labelled new cases. Every day at 4pm crouchy sticks up the graphic on here. Cases and Deaths. Both numbers have no narrative as you suggest they should, and I agree, for most people that remain poorly informed they see these two numbers and conflate them. The positive results aren't cases and the deaths aren't Covid deaths. On your other points as I've said before the only way to navigate through erroneous data is debate, but that is being narrowed every day. Interesting this lunchtime the BBC gave a brilliant graphic in support of vaccines that said every day this many people have a stroke after the vaccine they will still have a stroke so we cant interpret that as a risk in vaccine take up. Sensible and very important. ...here www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55216047. Now compare the pro vaccine statement I highlight below with the case rate narrative and tell me that MSM is doing the same. I haven't seen a lucid piece on this on BBC with such enthusiasm as this one. "But the truth is that people get sick all the time. Every five minutes in the UK one person has a heart attack and one person has a stroke. More than 600,000 people die each year.
There will be cases where somebody has a jab one day and then, shortly after, has a serious health problem that would have happened whether they were jabbed or not.
"We could see things that happen by unhappy chance," cautions Dr Ward.That sentence in bold could be used verbatim about *cases [*rather tests] Let's try it for size. There will be cases where somebody has a positive test one day and then, shortly after, has a serious health problem that would have happened whether they were tested or not.
We could see things that happen by unhappy chance.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Dec 11, 2020 14:47:21 GMT
They were likely tested for the presence of HIV antibodies being as though it’s an interaction with gp41 and they said they developed antibodies towards it which PCR wouldn’t tell you. Mullis was arguing the point about HIV not being the causative agent of AIDS, which was obviously a massive discussion in the 90s and informed the disastrous policies of South Africa under Mbeki (who denied retorviral provision, likely killing thousands needlessly.) But the fact is the man designed PCR for diagnostic purposes, he patented it and used that explicit language. This concept that he didn’t design it with diagnostics in mind is not true at all, he just didn’t believe a positive HIV pcr test was proof of it being the causative agent of AIDS because he believed that it was just demonstration of proof of a fragment of a retrovirus that exists in humans. Here’s the actual patent he filed: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ec/14/bf/0a414f77b2d203/US4683195.pdfThere is regular reference to diagnostic applications for both viruses and bacteria by detecting nucleic acids of the causative agents. Understand. I was just wondering if they had been daft enough to use PCR which could multiply some of the HIV that had been used in the vaccine design, which it could do. So they had seen a HIV remnant. It didn't say how they tested the recipients so it wasn't clear. In this instance PCR would actually be a way of making sure they were false positive. The vaccine contained a HIV protein that help clamp onto cells to aid the Spike Protein target in its passage to the cells to trigger an immune response. The HIV protein was administered as whole protein, not in nucleic acid form and therefore could not be targeted by PCR amplification which doesn’t amplify protein only the nucleic acids that code for protein. There was no HIV nucleic acid in the vaccine. A gp41 antibody positive but negative PCR test (with primers targeted for the nucleic acid sequence of the protein coded for in the HIV virus) would rule out the prospect of the antibodies being created as a response to an infection with HIV, and that they were caused by vaccine administration. The other way you could it is to test for antibody responses to other HIV proteins, which they would have been negative for given they only received one HIV protein.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 11, 2020 14:55:15 GMT
Understand. I was just wondering if they had been daft enough to use PCR which could multiply some of the HIV that had been used in the vaccine design, which it could do. So they had seen a HIV remnant. It didn't say how they tested the recipients so it wasn't clear. In this instance PCR would actually be a way of making sure they were false positive. The vaccine contained a HIV protein that help clamp onto cells to aid the Spike Protein target in its passage to the cells to trigger an immune response. The HIV protein was administered as whole protein, not in nucleic acid form and therefore could not be targeted by PCR amplification which doesn’t amplify protein only the nucleic acids that code for protein. There was no HIV nucleic acid in the vaccine. A gp41 antibody positive but negative PCR test (with primers targeted for the nucleic acid sequence of the protein coded for in the HIV virus) would rule out the prospect of the antibodies being created as a response to an infection with HIV, and that they were caused by vaccine administration. The other way you could it is to test for antibody responses to other HIV proteins, which they would have been negative for given they only received one HIV protein. Thanks 👍
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Dec 11, 2020 15:29:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 11, 2020 16:24:10 GMT
It's a good job he donned his mask. That eight foot walk with nobody near him could've been fatal.
Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 11, 2020 17:37:18 GMT
You are right in that not all positive tests mean someone is going to be ill from covid or be infectious and if public policy was based on assuming tests are 100% accurate this would be a problem. However the government and those involved in making policy know full well the tests are not 100% accurate and providing they have an idea of the level of accuracy (which they do - see here) they can factor this into any assessment of the risk and adjust policy accordingly. You are right in that in order to produce a reliable scientific theory you have to control all relevant variables and this is hard but possible in a lab. However you cannot control all variables out in the real world so having the same expectations of real world testing as laboratory testing is just unrealistic. It is also not even necessary. The aim of laboratory based testing is to produce a bullet proof scientific theory. The aim of real world testing is to be just good enough to produce models to guide public health policy - it's one off, subject to change and never going to be taught in schools as one of the pillars of scientific theory. Unlike a scientific theory the models do not have to be 100% accurate to be useful. The key is knowing the degree of accuracy and factoring this into your decision making. You seem to be suggesting that the government use cases (i.e. people who are ill from covid) to determine policy. This is bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. If actual cases are markedly on the rise you've lost control of the situation - to have got to that point there will be a large number of people transmitting the virus. The number of hospital admissions will be on rise, the health service will be stretched and on the way to breakdown, deaths will rise and you've got a massive problem trying to bring infections back under control. This is exactly where we were in March/April - the government had lost control of infections and had no choice but to manage the number of deaths Going back to using cases (or worse still deaths) as the determinant of public policy would be a disaster. You are assuming that government and public health policy makers are making naive assumptions about the data and models they have to hand. They aren't - they know they aren't 100% accurate and are making decisions accordingly. Suggesting that the government abandon their models because they do not conform to lab based conditions would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths for the sake of an inappropriate and unachievable level of accuracy in the data. That's a reasonable response but to a slightly different point than I was making. I think we agree in 90%. My response was a reaction to the thread where Benji suggested that yesterday's 20k daily cases meant we jump into lockdown quick smart. Paul pointed out that there was no need to do so based on a richer interpretation of the data, exactly what you are advocating and I support. Unfortunately as I said in my opening sentence "We don't seem to get our narrative away from cases as the driver of policy". That's a 'we' collective not a them singular. The BBC and other MSM outlets insist, wrongly in my view, of flashing up a graphic every night labelled new cases. Every day at 4pm crouchy sticks up the graphic on here. Cases and Deaths. Both numbers have no narrative as you suggest they should, and I agree, for most people that remain poorly informed they see these two numbers and conflate them. The positive results aren't cases and the deaths aren't Covid deaths. On your other points as I've said before the only way to navigate through erroneous data is debate, but that is being narrowed every day. Interesting this lunchtime the BBC gave a brilliant graphic in support of vaccines that said every day this many people have a stroke after the vaccine they will still have a stroke so we cant interpret that as a risk in vaccine take up. Sensible and very important. ...here www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55216047. Now compare the pro vaccine statement I highlight below with the case rate narrative and tell me that MSM is doing the same. I haven't seen a lucid piece on this on BBC with such enthusiasm as this one. "But the truth is that people get sick all the time. Every five minutes in the UK one person has a heart attack and one person has a stroke. More than 600,000 people die each year.
There will be cases where somebody has a jab one day and then, shortly after, has a serious health problem that would have happened whether they were jabbed or not.
"We could see things that happen by unhappy chance," cautions Dr Ward.That sentence in bold could be used verbatim about *cases [*rather tests] Let's try it for size. There will be cases where somebody has a positive test one day and then, shortly after, has a serious health problem that would have happened whether they were tested or not.
We could see things that happen by unhappy chance.I'm not following your logic here. In the case of the jab the point being made is that there isn't necessarily a causal link between the jab and a subsequent death. It is therefore not logically correct to claim the jab is dangerous. Are you trying to make the same sort of claim in relation to testing as a basis for public health policy? If so I don't think it makes sense. It is true that somebody would become ill from covid regardless of whether they had a test or not. It is also true that some people will become ill from covid even if they had a false negative and some people will not become ill even though they had a real positive. But that does not make a case for basing public health policy on people falling ill rather than on tests. There is no 100% causal link between a test result and a subsequent illness. But that isn't a problem. There is a significant correlation between the number of people infected (which tests give a rough estimate for) and the numbers of people likely to fall ill. The more people infected, the more people who will become ill. The fact that it is impossible to say for certain that x number of positive test means y people are infected which will result in z number becoming ill does not matter for the purposes of setting policy. If you have a reasonable measure of accuracy you can say that xish number of positive tests will result in yish people being actually infected which will result in zish number of people becoming ill - and that level of accuracy is perfectly good enough to make policy. It's true that the number of people actually falling ill is far more accurate than any estimates of number of people infected but that doesn't mean it is a better measure for determining public health policy. It's the equivalent of saying we'll see how many houses burn down before we decide if we need to build a fire station because we can't possibly accurately predict the number of fires and we can count burning houses. The way I visualise managing the pandemic is it's like trying to keep a massive iceberg underwater where the size of the iceberg is the equivalent of the number of infections. Public policy based on the use of tests is the equivalent of keeping tabs on the size of the iceberg, maintaining pressure to keep it below the surface and not letting it get too big. Basing policy on the number of people falling ill is the equivalent of easing off and waiting until the iceberg breaks through the surface of the water and measuring it's height - which is clearly far easier. The problem is that if you've let that happen the iceberg is already massive and rapidly increasing in size and before you know it that little bit of ice poking through the water is meters high and rising out of control. As well dealing with all the sinking ships you've got a massive problem in shrinking the iceberg back to a manageable level.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 11, 2020 17:54:24 GMT
WHO condemn lockdowns and say they ‘only make poor people poorer’. On Sunday, Dr Nabarro appealed to world leaders to stop ‘using lockdowns as your primary control method’, insisting that such drastic measures can have a dire impact on global poverty rates. ‘Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world — look what’s happening to poverty levels. ‘It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.’ Dr Nabarro continued: ‘Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.’ www.msn.com/en-ie/health/medical/who-condemn-lockdowns-and-say-they-only-make-poor-people-poorer/ar-BB19WBqr
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 11, 2020 18:00:24 GMT
Mislabelled deaths?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 11, 2020 18:10:39 GMT
Please read the thread. It's damning.
|
|