Covid - Two Paths

[Tanj]

Because slientists are infallible, right?

Nope, that's not the reason.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Nope, that's not the reason.

Well, so far you've been wrong on all counts. We have admissions/ disclaimers by the CDC in their latest PCR instruction manual, we have peer-reviewed papers showing cytopathic and exosome-inducing effects of antibiotics, and seems you've been reduced to dismissive remarks with little or no substance.

I'm not doing this to 'point-score', there really are serious problems with the methodology, as noted by many highly-credentialled dissident subject matter experts. So if you'd kindly just drop the ego thing and look into it afresh, we might get somewhere.

 

[Tanj]

you said:

Because slientists are infallible, right?

I said

Nope, that's not the reason.

You said:

Well, so far you've been wrong on all counts.

So you think scientists are infallible then. Interesting.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because slientists are infallible, right?

Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.

Wait, co-infection by other viruses? What about

II don't believe pathogenic viruses have been proven to exist.

It seems a bit disingenuous to quote a source you don't believe to be accurate as evidence for your claims.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Wait, co-infection by other viruses? What about

Lost for words, friend? Don't worry, it's good news, means the real numbers are far far lower, in fact I'd hazard a guess at, oh, ZILCH!

Anyway, here's a summary of your gold-gilded ruby-studded diamond-tipped testing methods in action in Florida.

Yep, I'm waiting for a 'gator bait covid positive diagnosis. Snappy!

It seems a bit disingenuous to quote a source you don't believe to be accurate as evidence for your claims.

Sorry it seems that way to you my rich rich friend. Why not turn to face heaven, drop to knees, confess your sin and let your heart cry out for God and His Salvation.

 

[KCfromNC]

Lost for words, friend? Don't worry, it's good news, means the real numbers are far far lower, in fact I'd hazard a guess at, oh, ZILCH!

Anyway, here's a summary of your gold-gilded ruby-studded diamond-tipped testing methods in action in Florida.

View attachment 281731

Yep, I'm waiting for a 'gator bait covid positive diagnosis. Snappy!



Sorry it seems that way to you my rich rich friend. Why not turn to face heaven, drop to knees, confess your sin and let your heart cry out for God and His Salvation.

This sure reads like the response I'd expect if one couldn't find a way to reconcile the two quotes I posted.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

This sure reads like the response I'd expect if one couldn't find a way to reconcile the two quotes I posted.

Haha I think I found a pidgin translator. The word 'virus' comes from a Latin word for 'poison'. So I'm using it in the solid classical sense, not this plastique nouveau-riche notion.

 

[loveofourlord]

Lost for words, friend? Don't worry, it's good news, means the real numbers are far far lower, in fact I'd hazard a guess at, oh, ZILCH!

Anyway, here's a summary of your gold-gilded ruby-studded diamond-tipped testing methods in action in Florida.

View attachment 281731

Yep, I'm waiting for a 'gator bait covid positive diagnosis. Snappy!



Sorry it seems that way to you my rich rich friend. Why not turn to face heaven, drop to knees, confess your sin and let your heart cry out for God and His Salvation.

Nice try, that was a confusion with labs going with the normal protocol which is, you only report the positives, when someone has HIV you don't report negatives, but with a pandemic where knowing % matters they messed up.

But here is the thing, that doesnt' change # of people positive with covid, it just changes what %, which comes out ti about 0.1% difference in the positive rate.

 

[Philip_B]

I am not sure entirely how to understand these results, however it does seem to me that the US has a statistically significant higher infection rate whist as a credit to their health system a lower case morbidity rate. Once you understand the contributing factors to the results it becomes possible to look at the real outcomes in different jurisdictions. There may well be more than the broad two paths options in terms of policy makers and their approach to this. The difficulty seems to be that if you choose the keep it out approach, then your controls have to be vigorously maintained.

The caseload in Australia has been significantly impacted by two monumental lapses, (1: The Ruby Princess where passengers to disembarked without screening or health checks where it seems that the cruise line may not have disclosed relevant information, 2: Failure in Melbourne Quarantine Protocols where supervision of the Quarantine was outsourced to under-resourced and under-trained third party private contractors).

The thing to realise is that we are not through this, and looking at the curves, one might think we may not be a third of the way through this yet. Globally we are still clocking up between 2 and 3 hundred thousand new cases a day - 2 Million new cases a week!

 

[Philip_B]

Hi, I am interested in the numbers, and something that I have realised is that there is a criss cross. I have been comparing reported infection rates and case morbidity.

What I have noticed is that nations with high Morbidity have low infection rates, and nations with high infection rates seem to have low morbidity rates. I am not really sure what to make of this, however it does seem sufficiently consistent to not simply be a statistical anomaly.

Infection Rates greater than 1%

Morbidity greater than 3.98%

 

[Paidiske]

What I have noticed is that nations with high Morbidity have low infection rates, and nations with high infection rates seem to have low morbidity rates. I am not really sure what to make of this, however it does seem sufficiently consistent to not simply be a statistical anomaly.

I wonder whether both reflect well functioning health systems? That is, countries which have robust testing (pick up the infections, thus reporting high rates), also have good treatment, leading to low morbidity? And conversely, that countries with poor testing (thus reporting low rates) also have poor treatment, leading to high morbidity?

 

[Philip_B]

I wonder whether both reflect well functioning health systems? That is, countries which have robust testing (pick up the infections, thus reporting high rates), also have good treatment, leading to low morbidity? And conversely, that countries with poor testing (thus reporting low rates) also have poor treatment, leading to high morbidity?

I think that there is more to it than this. When you compare the US and the UK there is a glaring difference, and I would have thought that the general population and health services would have been essentially comparable. On the other hand I think what you are suggesting does make some sense. I am inclined to that the diverse public policy foundations will present different outcomes. I also think Germany whose health system is thought to be good has a high morbidity. I also wonder if there are not perhaps different strains of the virus in different areas, as might be suggested by the fairly high morbidity rates in Europe.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Nice try, that was a confusion with labs going with the normal protocol which is, you only report the positives, when someone has HIV you don't report negatives, but with a pandemic where knowing % matters they messed up.

But here is the thing, that doesnt' change # of people positive with covid, it just changes what %, which comes out ti about 0.1% difference in the positive rate.

Sure, nothing to see here, just rampant statistical fraud. But that's ok because they do it for HIV. We have a normalising precedent. Good one, that's how the joy of Bolshevism works I guess.

Call this a pandemic? Pandemic of stupid maybe. As the Good Book puts it so beautifully:

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (2 Thess 2:10)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The caseload in Australia has been significantly impacted by two monumental lapses,

Do you watch a lot of TV? Listen to the politicians? You'd benefit from a good dose of reality methinks.

That reality being that there is no reliable test for nCov and no symptoms unique to Covid. It's a total crapshoot.

So if you can't help but parrot the mainstream rubbish without questioning their assumptions, I politely suggest this is not the thread on which to be regurgitating propaganda.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure the Ethics & Morality section is the place for conspiracy theories...

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I'm not sure the Ethics & Morality section is the place for conspiracy theories...

Just scientific facts. Had you read my previous posts, you'd see that the CDC itself admits the PCR tests are inconclusive and non-specific. Why is that so hard to grasp?

The other scientific point is that no laboratory experiment has yet been able to identify anything more than a few viral fragments, or distinguished the pathogenic virus from an exosome, the protein solvent released by dying cells. Now that possibility needs to be excluded, as a matter of real science.

So instead of 'conspiracy theory' perhaps you might consider it as a 'collaborative global public/private partnership' in a 'bold long-term project' with 'significant ROI' for 'early-stage investors'.

Conspiracy is just business, that's how Babylon works my dear.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sure, nothing to see here, just rampant statistical fraud. But that's ok because they do it for HIV. We have a normalising precedent. Good one, that's how the joy of Bolshevism works I guess.

Call this a pandemic? Pandemic of stupid maybe. As the Good Book puts it so beautifully:

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (2 Thess 2:10)

It's not fraud, it's how you do medicine, for most diseases, you don't care what % of the population has a disease, your just trying to find out who has it. With a new disease you need to find out what % have it to control it. But keep up thinking it's fraud rather then learning something, seems to be common with the crowd that wants ti pretend covid is some how not a problem.

 

[Philip_B]

Do you watch a lot of TV? Listen to the politicians? You'd benefit from a good dose of reality methinks.
That reality being that there is no reliable test for nCov and no symptoms unique to Covid. It's a total crapshoot.
So if you can't help but parrot the mainstream rubbish without questioning their assumptions, I politely suggest this is not the thread on which to be regurgitating propaganda.

Thank you for the patronising put down.

Therapeutic Goods Administration has issued a statement on the subject which can be found here. COVID-19 testing in Australia - information for health professionals
I accept that your position might be argued if you read the first two paragraphs, however you may come to a more balanced view if you read the whole article.

I am generally cautious, if not critical, of mainstream media and it's failure to ask questions of substance, and indeed if you bothered to understand what I was asking you would have seen that I was not in fact parroting mainstream rubbish, but rather asking question of the data I sourced from a Google News Source.

That question is based in the observation that what is being shown suggests that some jurisdictions have higher infections rates reported in the population, and some jurisdictions have higher case mortality rates reported in the caseload. Observing the data seems to show that places with high infections rates have lower morbidity rates, whilst those with higher mortality rates have lower infection rates.

​

My first noticed this when I saw the difference between the USA and the UK. When I did some more analysis of this across a wider sampling of data I found that observable difference is quite common, and I concluded that it was not simply a statistical anomaly.

Now I don't know what the reason for this is, and it may be due to differences in public policy, differences in testing regimes, differences in quality of health care, differences in the strains of the virus, or something else.

Your proposition that testing results some sort of random outcome based largely on chance would most likely be discounted by the observable differences in the data which although not explained are indeed still observable.

Your suggestion that I am not welcome in this thread because my views do not concur with yours is a classic theme of the derisory politics of our age, and is the preserve of bullies and bigots. I welcome your contribution, though I may not agree with it, because by listening to you I am extended beyond the tripe of being a passive receptor of mainstream media.

 

[visionary]

The press conference featured Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and frontline doctors sharing their views and opinions on coronavirus and the medical response to the pandemic. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/27/facebook-censors-viral-video-of-doctors-capitol-hill-coronavirus-press-conference/

 

[Strathos]

The press conference featured Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and frontline doctors sharing their views and opinions on coronavirus and the medical response to the pandemic. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/27/facebook-censors-viral-video-of-doctors-capitol-hill-coronavirus-press-conference/

An unhinged rant from a woman known for claiming, among other things:

- Reptilian aliens control the goverment
- Alien DNA is used in vaccines
- Disease is caused by sex with demons

This is just getting silly now. If there were popular videos promoting things like running into traffic or setting yourself on fire, claiming they are perfectly safe, those would be 'censored' too, if people were stupid enough to believe them. And apparently they are.