International COVID-19 Updates & Discussion 3

[Mirai]

View attachment 1238848

Sounds like a wild west in the UK covid-19 testing scene. Just another thing that was dismissed as a conspiracy which turns out to be true (referring to the number of cycles). Seems like anyone and their dog can set up a covid-19 testing provider.

That's not charitable. Obviously standardisation should occur and cycle thresholds should match. What they did was probably err on the side of caution and later did not update their thresholds.

PCR cycles are a standard thing in all PCR tests, covid-19 and everything else amplified by PCR.

The thing is that science evolves. We know different things now, we knew 6 months ago and in six months we may know things which we think are correct now, to be not correct.

This may be a sensationalist headline, also, as to how long was the latency period before the UK knew and could replicate that 30 cycles was good for infectivity detection and also how long did it take for the relevant panel to implement this in guidelines.

Anyhow as many as 66% of people really did need to isolate and were told to do so.

Also not sure about people facing ruin. There seems to be some unnecessary drama to this.

 

[access]

That's not charitable. Obviously standardisation should occur and cycle thresholds should match. What they did was probably err on the side of caution and later did not update their thresholds.

PCR cycles are a standard thing in all PCR tests, covid-19 and everything else amplified by PCR.

The thing is that science evolves. We know different things now, we knew 6 months ago and in six months we may know things which we think are correct now, to be not correct.

This may be a sensationalist headline, also, as to how long was the latency period before the UK knew and could replicate that 30 cycles was good for infectivity detection and also how long did it take for the relevant panel to implement this in guidelines.

Anyhow as many as 66% of people really did need to isolate and were told to do so.

Also not sure about people facing ruin. There seems to be some unnecessary drama to this.

?

this was said by multiple people more than 6 months ago, they knew the same things then that they know now. it was just ignored by the authorities making the rules

it was applicable then as it is now.

no it is not "broken clock technique", which is a broken analogy btw. just because you refused to acknowledge 4pm yesterday and will only today, does not make 4pm wrong yesterday.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

That's not charitable. Obviously standardisation should occur and cycle thresholds should match. What they did was probably err on the side of caution and later did not update their thresholds.

PCR cycles are a standard thing in all PCR tests, covid-19 and everything else amplified by PCR.

The thing is that science evolves. We know different things now, we knew 6 months ago and in six months we may know things which we think are correct now, to be not correct.

This may be a sensationalist headline, also, as to how long was the latency period before the UK knew and could replicate that 30 cycles was good for infectivity detection and also how long did it take for the relevant panel to implement this in guidelines.

Anyhow as many as 66% of people really did need to isolate and were told to do so.

Also not sure about people facing ruin. There seems to be some unnecessary drama to this.

Nope. PCR cycles were one of the first issues discussed back in 2020. The fact that there is still a lack of standardisation regarding the no. of cycles is simply unacceptable.

 

[Mirai]

Nope. PCR cycles were one of the first issues discussed back in 2020. The fact that there is still a lack of standardisation regarding the no. of cycles is simply unacceptable.

Again just because something was discussed, and I told you CTs are common to PCR in general, does it mean there was ample evidence to say we can get away with 30 cycles or less.

People here think science is some sort of soothsaying.

 

[Mirai]

?

this was said by multiple people more than 6 months ago, they knew the same things then that they know now. it was just ignored by the authorities making the rules

it was applicable then as it is now.

no it is not "broken clock technique", which is a broken analogy btw. just because you refused to acknowledge 4pm yesterday and will only today, does not make 4pm wrong yesterday.

Again, was there evidence to back this up? Hindsight is 20/20.

People don't understand how science works.

 

[access]

Again, was there evidence to back this up? Hindsight is 20/20.

People don't understand how science works.

yes there was, there is. there are courts that ruled over this as well in europe in 2020.

 

[Mirai]

yes there was, there is. there are courts that ruled over this as well in europe in 2020.

Was there evidence?

If there was evidence was it valid?

Was it then considered by a panel of experts?

If yes to all, then there was an issue with implementation.

If no to some, then maybe evidence at the time was of poor quality.

But don't assume conspiracy theories or gross incompetence.

If there was gross incompetence then it's across the board for everything, probably or more likely in your own field as this is under more scrutiny then your own field, likely.

That's just the way the world works. It's always damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

 

[access]

Was there evidence?

If there was evidence was it valid?

Was it then considered by a panel of experts?

If yes to all, then there was an issue with implementation.

If no to some, then maybe evidence at the time was of poor quality.

But don't assume conspiracy theories or gross incompetence.

If there was gross incompetence then it's across the board for everything, probably or more likely in your own field as this is under more scrutiny then your own field, likely.

That's just the way the world works. It's always damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

yes.

heres one example from 2020, which was used in a court of law in 2020.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

ironic that you say dont assume conspiracy, when this is what people, like yourself it seems, did when this information came out from multiple sources in 2020.

 

[Geoff.D]

yes.

heres one example from 2020, which was used in a court of law in 2020.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

ironic that you say dont assume conspiracy, when this is what people, like yourself it seems, did when this information came out from multiple sources in 2020.

Very good link! It shows why this whole paranoia about PCR testing should have been faced head-on many months ago.

Many people pointed out the fallacies of relying on PCR tests as a means to classify people as infected with the SARS Cov - 2 virus. Yet the "authorities" aided and abetted by medical professionals pushed for it to be the be-all and end-all of testing for Covid. So, those of you who now want to claim that more knowledge is now available can cry and lament now and claim conspiracies as much as you like, those of us that rejected it from the outset were and are still correct in our original assessment.

PCR testing, as part of a diagnosis by a medical professional, is the ONLY valid way to use PCR testing for Covid 19, because the results need to be properly interpreted by a doctor in support of a diagnosis driven by his or her experience and training, NOT by a bunch of autocrats hell-bent creating mass hysteria and panic and destroying the lives of individuals in the process.

 

[TysonRoux]

US Covid death toll surpasses 900,000​

The two-year total compiled by Johns Hopkins University comes less than two months after eclipsing 800,000 deaths

‘It is an astronomically high number’: US Covid death toll surpasses 900,000

The two-year total compiled by Johns Hopkins University comes less than two months after eclipsing 800,000 deaths

www.theguardian.com

Trump says he trusts China’s Xi on coronavirus and the US has it ‘totally under control’​

Trump says he trusts China's Xi on coronavirus and the US has it 'totally under control'

"It's one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It's going to be just fine," Trump told CNBC's Joe Kernen from the World Economic Forum in Davos.

www.cnbc.com

“It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine,” Trump told CNBC’s Joe Kernen from the World Economic Forum in Davos.

 

[tetrasect]

yes.

heres one example from 2020, which was used in a court of law in 2020.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

ironic that you say dont assume conspiracy, when this is what people, like yourself it seems, did when this information came out from multiple sources in 2020.

That's not evidence.

 

[Paulsie]

That's just the way the world works. It's always damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Nope, you're damned if you're told to look and you don't. No other way around it. No ifs and buts.

 

[tetrasect]

Nope, you're damned if you're told to look and you don't. No other way around it. No ifs and buts.

Look at your aunties anti-vax facebook page about how vaccines are magnetic nanobots that turn us into cyborgs to fight in the future storm wars?

 

[Geoff.D]

US Covid death toll surpasses 900,000​

The two-year total compiled by Johns Hopkins University comes less than two months after eclipsing 800,000 deaths

‘It is an astronomically high number’: US Covid death toll surpasses 900,000

The two-year total compiled by Johns Hopkins University comes less than two months after eclipsing 800,000 deaths

www.theguardian.com

Trump says he trusts China’s Xi on coronavirus and the US has it ‘totally under control’​

Trump says he trusts China's Xi on coronavirus and the US has it 'totally under control'

"It's one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It's going to be just fine," Trump told CNBC's Joe Kernen from the World Economic Forum in Davos.

www.cnbc.com

“It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine,” Trump told CNBC’s Joe Kernen from the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Why are you posting links to articles that are 2 years old now? There is zero point in digging up the BS published at the start of this "pandemic" - it just confuses those who are not observant enough to check the dates.

 

[tetrasect]

Why are you posting links to articles that are 2 years old now? There is zero point in digging up the BS published at the start of this "pandemic" - it just confuses those who are not observant enough to heck that dates.

Why do you put pandemic in quotes? Do you actually think this is not a pandemic or are you just trying to fit in with the anti-vax crowd?

 

[Geoff.D]

Why do you put pandemic in quotes? Do you actually think this is not a pandemic or are you just trying to fit in with the anti-vax crowd?

Because it was a manufactured contrived pandemic.

 

[TysonRoux]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

China must be so proud of their accomplishments - made the 1st world look like fools with their strong lights, Clorox, horse dewormer, magnetic, alered DNA, .........

 

[PsyWulf]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

China must be so proud of their accomplishments - made the 1st world look like fools with their strong lights, Clorox, horse dewormer, magentic, alered DNA, .........

"Western medicine"

 

[PsyWulf]

Seems my implication that @Geoff.D is a dumbass is problematic,it's fine though
@Geoff.D has not disproven the assertion that he is a dumbass though

Hope this is better @mods,i've reported a few posts for misinformation since you feel like working too

 

[Mirai]

yes.

heres one example from 2020, which was used in a court of law in 2020.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

ironic that you say dont assume conspiracy, when this is what people, like yourself it seems, did when this information came out from multiple sources in 2020.

That article merely warns about the risk of false positives.

At the time they claimed:

The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%