Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Boris blaming the public’s “discipline” for cases going up.

 

This despite a nationwide campaign to get people out to pubs and restaurants which ended only a month ago. He might be right in that the public became complacent but no more so than the government.

Not sure its complacency, restrictions were always going to come and go given the delicate balancing act of keeping the economy going and minimising the effects on public health.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daughter tested positive today.

she has been isolating for a week as she is in a shared house whilst at univ of Nottingham ,and one of the girls tested positive last weekend.

All 5 in the house have it now and only one feels slightly ill.

Hopefully that’s how it stays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cambridgefox said:

Daughter tested positive today.

she has been isolating for a week as she is in a shared house whilst at univ of Nottingham ,and one of the girls tested positive last weekend.

All 5 in the house have it now and only one feels slightly ill.

Hopefully that’s how it stays.

Lets hope your daughter and her house mates all make a speedy recovery.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/10/2020 at 20:43, joachim1965 said:

probably not,  but do you seriously think we now have 7000 cases a day? 

The false positives must be huge, influenza is killing 10 times more people at the moment than covid,  the deaths from untreated and undiagnosed cancer will be horrendous,  not to mention suicides and people just giving up in care homes due to being isolated from family, the solution cannot be expected to be worse than the problem but unfortunately it is.

I have a lot of sympathy with the general point you are trying to get across - but do you have any proof for that highlighted?

 

My view is that your point about flu, along with the one about “people being run over a bus” (who have tested +ve for Covid and thus a Covid statistic), are two arguments oft cited.  And, typically, if you read/ hear it often enough you begin believing it (and want others to believe it to support that position).
 

That is my reason for questioning you.  I suspect you are wrong but happy to be proved wrong myself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

I have a lot of sympathy with the general point you are trying to get across - but do you have any proof for that highlighted?

 

Here's a link for you.  The table can be found in section 2, the xlsx download.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending18september2020#deaths-data

 

In summary, the 6 weeks covering August and the first half of September (to 18th Sept.) showed 55,128 deaths registered in England and Wales, of which 694 mentioned Covid or Covid and pneumonia, and 6,389 mentioned flu and/or pneumonia but not Covid.

 

Obviously we know that a fairly high proportion - perhaps two thirds of flu/pneumonia deaths are were not primarily caused by flu/pneumonia, there was another underlying cause and flu/pneumonia just happened to be the final straw.  But the same is also true of Covid.  What's the proportion?  I can't find any statistics to say.  

 

But that's the rationale for saying flu and pneumonia are currently killing more people than Covid.  It's taken from death certificates.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Here's a link for you.  The table can be found in section 2, the xlsx download.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending18september2020#deaths-data

 

In summary, the 6 weeks covering August and the first half of September (to 18th Sept.) showed 55,128 deaths registered in England and Wales, of which 694 mentioned Covid or Covid and pneumonia, and 6,389 mentioned flu and/or pneumonia but not Covid.

 

Obviously we know that a fairly high proportion - perhaps two thirds of flu/pneumonia deaths are were not primarily caused by flu/pneumonia, there was another underlying cause and flu/pneumonia just happened to be the final straw.  But the same is also true of Covid.  What's the proportion?  I can't find any statistics to say.  

 

But that's the rationale for saying flu and pneumonia are currently killing more people than Covid.  It's taken from death certificates.  

The most important word in that post.

 

The point is, as it has been all along, that we don't know enough about how many cases would spring up (with the associated social and economic upheaval) if restrictions were lifted. As such, it might be a good idea to know more about that before proceeding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zorro en españa said:

I have a lot of sympathy with the general point you are trying to get across - but do you have any proof for that highlighted?

 

My view is that your point about flu, along with the one about “people being run over a bus” (who have tested +ve for Covid and thus a Covid statistic), are two arguments oft cited.  And, typically, if you read/ hear it often enough you begin believing it (and want others to believe it to support that position).
 

That is my reason for questioning you.  I suspect you are wrong but happy to be proved wrong myself.

 

all deaths quoted are people who died for any reason but tested positive within 28 days.

I seriously suggest you stop watching BBC project fear and do a little bit of research.

Screenshot_20200930-191840_YouTube.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The most important word in that post.

 

The point is, as it has been all along, that we don't know enough about how many cases would spring up (with the associated social and economic upheaval) if restrictions were lifted. As such, it might be a good idea to know more about that before proceeding.

As an intelligent person and someone who takes science seriously, you must realise that the pcr test is not supposed to be used for diagnosis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

As an intelligent person and someone who takes science seriously, you must realise that the pcr test is not supposed to be used for diagnosis. 

I do and I do (though the way the PCR test is used is a debate in itself).

 

However, I'm not sure how that supports an argument that we have enough information to suggest that more relaxed measures wouldn't, to the degree of certainty necessary, result in a spike in Covid that could result in more serious economic and social consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I do and I do (though the way the PCR test is used is a debate in itself).

 

However, I'm not sure how that supports an argument that we have enough information to suggest that more relaxed measures wouldn't, to the degree of certainty necessary, result in a spike in Covid that could result in more serious economic and social consequences.

of course it does,  the spike isn't real, false positives account for most cases, surely you must see that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

of course it does,  the spike isn't real, false positives account for most cases, surely you must see that.

I'm sorry, I see nothing of the sort.

 

I see an theory uncorroborated by peer review that the testing may be flawed and as such false positives may be getting out, and ergo Covid would not kill more people than flu and pneumonia should "normal" life resume.

 

It's possible and I'm not going to discount it out of hand, but taking a colossal chance on it without harder evidence and more research when the penalty for getting it wrong is likely so dire? No.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, I see nothing of the sort.

 

I see an theory uncorroborated by peer review that the testing may be flawed and as such false positives may be getting out, and ergo Covid would not kill more people than flu and pneumonia should "normal" life resume.

 

It's possible and I'm not going to discount it out of hand, but taking a colossal chance on it without harder evidence and more research when the penalty for getting it wrong is likely so dire? No.

Do you doubt the word of Kary Mullis ?

Pcr is an analytical tool and should not be used to diagnose. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@dsr-burnley thank you for the reference - appreciated.

 

52 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

all deaths quoted are people who died for any reason but tested positive within 28 days.

I seriously suggest you stop watching BBC project fear and do a little bit of research.

 

dearie me - touchy, touchy.  Another oft cited comment - the fear-mongering MSM .... keep going 🙂

 

To be quite honest with you I tend to use my own instinct before accepting anything.  It has done fine by me in my many years.
 

We know that Covid and influenza are both respiratory diseases (and I see you have had to throw pneumonia into the mix to back up your argument - petty observation by me I accept).  This is what my instinct tells me: To the best of my knowledge influenza kicks in big time with the deterioration of the weather (has it been that bad in the UK?) - so, given that at this stage of the year it is probably quite early in the cycle, could you possibly conceive that, just maybe, the high number of people your graph shows dying from flu & pneumonia could have another proponent.  Just asking .......

 

It is the kind of counter-argument to Covid being cited when the proverbial bus hits them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Do you doubt the word of Kary Mullis ?

Pcr is an analytical tool and should not be used to diagnose. 

Until it is corroborated by peer review, I doubt the word of any person in the scientific field. That's the basis of the method.

 

Other people, are, of course, free to do as they please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

@dsr-burnley thank you for the reference - appreciated.

 

dearie me - touchy, touchy.  Another oft cited comment - the fear-mongering MSM .... keep going 🙂

 

To be quite honest with you I tend to use my own instinct before accepting anything.  It has done fine by me in my many years.
 

We know that Covid and influenza are both respiratory diseases (and I see you have had to throw pneumonia into the mix to back up your argument - petty observation by me I accept).  This is what my instinct tells me: To the best of my knowledge influenza kicks in big time with the deterioration of the weather (has it been that bad in the UK?) - so, given that at this stage of the year it is probably quite early in the cycle, could you possibly conceive that, just maybe, the high number of people your graph shows dying from flu & pneumonia could have another proponent.  Just asking .......

 

It is the kind of counter-argument to Covid being cited when the proverbial bus hits them.

 

Fine, we are all entitled to our own opinion and I respect the fact that you have yours, but please tell me where all the deaths are, because we are making people destitute and are killing countless people due to undiagnosed and untreated cancer , all for what , cases, cases, cases.

Most of which will be false positives.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leicsmac said:

Until it is corroborated by peer review, I doubt the word of any person in the scientific field. That's the basis of the method.

 

Other people, are, of course, free to do as they please.

Kary Mullis is the inventor of the test, a nobel prize winner, if any one should know , he should.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

@dsr-burnley thank you for the reference - appreciated.

 

dearie me - touchy, touchy.  Another oft cited comment - the fear-mongering MSM .... keep going 🙂

 

To be quite honest with you I tend to use my own instinct before accepting anything.  It has done fine by me in my many years.
 

We know that Covid and influenza are both respiratory diseases (and I see you have had to throw pneumonia into the mix to back up your argument - petty observation by me I accept).  This is what my instinct tells me: To the best of my knowledge influenza kicks in big time with the deterioration of the weather (has it been that bad in the UK?) - so, given that at this stage of the year it is probably quite early in the cycle, could you possibly conceive that, just maybe, the high number of people your graph shows dying from flu & pneumonia could have another proponent.  Just asking .......

 

It is the kind of counter-argument to Covid being cited when the proverbial bus hits them.

 

I don't quite get your point with regards to pneumonia,  are you aware of how covid kills you? yep severe pneumonia,  and as covid is a coronavirus it is also seasonal so not getting your point there.

I would imagine that as influenza and covid only tend to kill elderly and people with underlying issues the death rate over the winter will be split between the two, but the total will probably be pretty much the same as an average winter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Kary Mullis is the inventor of the test, a nobel prize winner, if any one should know , he should.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But still I'd like to see what he says corroborated by more study before being certain enough to stake as much as is needed to be staked on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But still I'd like to see what he says corroborated by more study before being certain enough to stake as much as is needed to be staked on it.

"you'd think so " come on , I credit you with more intelligence than that.

If I invented a procedure to do a specific thing and it did the specific thing extremely well, then people started to use it for another purpose,which it didn't do very well do you not think that me telling them it was not suitable for what they are using it for should hold some credence? would it take others to make that decision or come to that conclusion?

No it would not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

"you'd think so " come on , I credit you with more intelligence than that.

If I invented a procedure to do a specific thing and it did the specific thing extremely well, then people started to use it for another purpose,which it didn't do very well do you not think that me telling them it was not suitable for what they are using it for should hold some credence? would it take others to make that decision or come to that conclusion?

No it would not.

...in the opinion of the original inventor only, yes.

 

They could well be right, in fact given the balance of probability they likely are right. But balance of probability isn't enough, not on this one. Which is why I'm very much standing by what I said - more time is needed for-

 

Hang on:

 

https://in.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

 

"False. The quote undermining PCR tests is misattributed to Mullis and taken out of context. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient."

 

Forget I said anything, this whole discussion is redundant if Mullis himself didn't say that the PCR test didn't do the job.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...in the opinion of the original inventor only, yes.

 

They could well be right, in fact given the balance of probability they likely are right. But balance of probability isn't enough, not on this one. Which is why I'm very much standing by what I said - more time is needed for-

 

Hang on:

 

https://in.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

 

"False. The quote undermining PCR tests is misattributed to Mullis and taken out of context. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient."

 

Forget I said anything, this whole discussion is redundant if Mullis himself didn't say that the PCR test didn't do the job.

It is made for virus detection, it was developed to establish the link between HIV and aids.

It cannot tell you what virus you have and also detects old and inactive virus.  Kary Mullis actually said that a pcr test cannot tell you if you are sick nor can it tell you if you are going to be sick, therefore it is not suitable for diagnosis, please do your research.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...