Coronavirus.

[joshua]

Errrr so it's not a virus from space not a conspiracy by the new world order, not a plot by bill gates to microchip us all, it's just an allergy to cillitt bang

 

[SketchyMagpie]

He's referring to cleaning products that reference "coronavirus" (ie previously identified strains) before the outbreak of Covid19, because different coronaviruses (ie viruses with protein spike crowns) have been known about since the 60s.

The tests are designed to detect specific antigens from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, however, so they wouldn't detect anything else and the coronavirus mentioned on those pre-2020 labels are of a different genus.

 

[tek-monkey]

... and the test kits are even described as unreliable by their creator.

The guy who insisted there was no link between hiv and aids? Or someone else?

Anyway, positive test result, so guess that's me in hermit mode for a bit. Eric is also getting the hot/cold thing and didn't have a good night, will assume he has it for now as testing him will be hard.

 

[tek-monkey]

It's the pandemic level of transmission (ie global) that makes a virus like covid19 newsworthy (though I'm not denying there is an element in our media that will catastrophise stuff like this to make money). The reason that a pandemic is more newsworthy than any other nasty virus is because, besides the increased risk to health, the higher rate and levels of transmission make mutations that can escape vaccines and cause more harm etc much more likely.

Do you remember how, back before the government abandoned the testing, if you got a positive with the "at home" kits then you had to confirm it with a PCR...? That in itself is proof that we have always known the rapid tests were unreliable, because otherwise there would have been no need to confirm it with a lab test, would there? Perhaps it hadn't occurred to some people if you've not followed it very closely, but that seems like something you could easily have ascertained through logic to me.

It's also worth mentioning that the rapid tests generally report false negatives rather than false positives, so - if anything - they're likely to give the impression of there being less Covid around than there actually is, not more.

Did the lab tests let them monitor strains too?

 

[SketchyMagpie]

I'm not sure because I know there was also lots of random sampling of the public (including monitoring sewers... talk about a shit job!).

I would guess that, since the lab tests are doing a very specific thing in detecting a known virus, they probably didn't also look for new strains but I don't honestly know.

Sorry to hear about that positive test!

 

[The Hawk]

Do you remember how, back before the government abandoned the testing, if you got a positive with the "at home" kits then you had to confirm it with a PCR...? That in itself is proof that we have always known the rapid tests were unreliable, because otherwise there would have been no need to confirm it with a lab test, would there? Perhaps it hadn't occurred to some people if you've not followed it very closely, but that seems like something you could easily have ascertained through logic to me.

It's also worth mentioning that the rapid tests generally report false negatives rather than false positives, so - if anything - they're likely to give the impression of there being less Covid around than there actually is, not more.

The main reasons why the PCR confirmation tests were originally undertaken were:
1) that the rapid tests were thought to have a relatively low accuracy rate; and
2) because it was thought that self testing would be inaccurate, due to not following the instructions correctly; and
3) tests carried out under laboratory conditions (i.e. the PCR tests) tend to be more accurate.

Over time, studies have found that the rapid test kits have proved to be much more reliable than originally thought but, still only when they are used correctly.

However, with Omicron it has been found that the rapid tests have a higher inaccuracy rate if the swabs are only taken from the nose so, regardless, what the test kit booklet states, swabs should be taken from the throat and nose.

You are correct in stating that false negatives are more common than false positives.

There have been plenty of studies regarding the above, e.g. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071215

Finally, it's worth mentioning another reason why the government has scaled down the PCR testing, cost.

 

[SketchyMagpie]

Yeah, fair enough, I didn't mean to imply the lower accuracy of the rapid tests was the only reason, but rather an aspect of it.

 

[DoggedWalker]

Much like idiots, not all coronaviruses are the same. Some are worse than others, and some you can’t get rid of.

 

[Trumpet]

catastrophise

Great word.

 

[gilbert grape]

Errrr so it's not a virus from space not a conspiracy by the new world order, not a plot by bill gates to microchip us all, it's just an allergy to cillitt bang

WTF???

 

[tek-monkey]

Slept all day yesterday, and all night, thank god my wife got it first as she's just about well enough to deal with Eric.

Feeling somewhat more alive today though, just the headache and back ache really, other symptoms are more an irritation than a problem. Head is very fuzzy though, very vague. Tbh it feels like a really bad hangover while you've got flu?

 

[Withnail]

Maybe what people are experiencing are from the group of coronavirus, as described on the labels of cleaning materials for many years?
Covid 19 was surely what was perported to be the pandemic, while horrible viruses will always be around? We’ve just never felt like sharing the news with the masses each time somebody had one and the test kits are even described as unreliable by their creator.

Can we all just take a moment?

A moment in which we deconstruct a 'message' from someone who genuinely believes they have something of import to convey to 'the masses'?

Maybe what people are experiencing are from the group of coronavirus, as described on the labels of cleaning materials for many years?

Shouldn't that be 'coronaviruses' - and for bonus points, maybe you would like to 'research' how each of the already existing coronaviruses are thought to have made their way into the roll call of human diseases?

Hint - none of them have thus far been linked to a Lab-Leak hypothesis, not least because all of the other ones made the leap before Labs were even a thing, though tbf there is always a first time.

There is a long, quite well documented, history of coronaviruses making their way into humans via zoonosis.

Covid 19 was surely what was perported to be the pandemic, while horrible viruses will always be around?

Leaving aside how little sense this makes as a standalone sentence, what little sense that can be gleaned from it suggests you have no understanding of the threat posed by 'novel' viruses, no understanding at all about what the word 'pandemic' means, and an inability to spell the word 'purported'.

We’ve just never felt like sharing the news with the masses each time somebody had one...

I want you to clear your mind, relax, begin a thought experiment with me...

... a new illness emerges, it becomes apparent that this is caused by a 'novel' coronavirus, (the last time this happened it was incredibly fatal but very short-lived, partly because of the case fatality rate, it was very much big news at the time) but this one seems at first like it might be contained like the last one.

Stay with me... then this one goes global before local containment has been possible - suddenly everybody is faced with a 'novel' coronavirus. Now it is everywhere, and we are in a pandemic. What does that mean in real terms?

For starters it means we start by knowing nothing at all - what is this virus? how is it transmitted? who is susceptible? who isn't? is it fatal? - these questions can only be answered in real time.

In the course of that now very real time, lots of people start dying - many of them in really quite horrible ways - and it becomes very quickly apparent that we need to work out what this is, what it does, what we can do about it, and how we can turn this tide.

Now you can bitch about whatever you like about the response, and certainly there were wrong turns along the way, and some pretty unsavoury people called upon to make those decisions, but the way you talk does a massive disservice to the people that actually bore the brunt of the onslaught, the people who worked towards an answer, the thousands who rolled up their sleeves for the trials, then those that did so in their millions to turn off the tap.

You have taken a wrong turn, and are in the wrong about this. Pull yourself together man.

 

[gilbert grape]

Can we all just take a moment?

A moment in which we deconstruct a 'message' from someone who genuinely believes they have something of import to convey to 'the masses'?


Shouldn't that be 'coronaviruses' - and for bonus points, maybe you would like to 'research' how each of the already existing coronaviruses are thought to have made their way into the roll call of human diseases?

Hint - none of them have thus far been linked to a Lab-Leak hypothesis, not least because all of the other ones made the leap before Labs were even a thing, though tbf there is always a first time.

There is a long, quite well documented, history of coronaviruses making their way into humans via zoonosis.


Leaving aside how little sense this makes as a standalone sentence, what little sense that can be gleaned from it suggests you have no understanding of the threat posed by 'novel' viruses, no understanding at all about what the word 'pandemic' means, and an inability to spell the word 'purported'.


I want you to clear your mind, relax, begin a thought experiment with me...

... a new illness emerges, it becomes apparent that this is caused by a 'novel' coronavirus, (the last time this happened it was incredibly fatal but very short-lived, partly because of the case fatality rate, it was very much big news at the time) but this one seems at first like it might be contained like the last one.

Stay with me... then this one goes global before local containment has been possible - suddenly everybody is faced with a 'novel' coronavirus. Now it is everywhere, and we are in a pandemic. What does that mean in real terms?

For starters it means we start by knowing nothing at all - what is this virus? how is it transmitted? who is susceptible? who isn't? is it fatal? - these questions can only be answered in real time.

In the course of that now very real time, lots of people start dying - many of them in really quite horrible ways - and it becomes very quickly apparent that we need to work out what this is, what it does, what we can do about it, and how we can turn this tide.

Now you can bitch about whatever you like about the response, and certainly there were wrong turns along the way, and some pretty unsavoury people called upon to make those decisions, but the way you talk does a massive disservice to the people that actually bore the brunt of the onslaught, the people who worked towards an answer, the thousands who rolled up their sleeves for the trials, then those that did so in their millions to turn off the tap.

You have taken a wrong turn, and are in the wrong about this. Pull yourself together man.

You've taught me little more than how to be even more condescending than you already were.
Many of the things that you attempt to deny are actually out there, but you don;t want to know about, even if I post links.
Taking a stance that everything comes from right wing nut jobs if you dare to challenge the dictated narrative sort of sums you up.

I know exactly where I am and where these authoritarian establishments want to take us.

Marking 3 years since they locked us all up, arrested people for being out in public, hit people with massive fines for doing normal things and ruined many businesses, lives and organisations should live on in all of our memories.
That is, unless they did it ALL for our own good and their only interest was to protect and serve us? Go on, tell me another!

 

[Jonah]

Cordyceps will be next.

Then we can all go into full ‘The Last of Us’ mode.






*This meant as a joke - treat it as such*

 

[SketchyMagpie]

There's a Christopher Hitchens quote I'm going to adopt as a mantra as far as this thread goes:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

[proactive]

There's a Christopher Hitchens quote I'm going to adopt as a mantra as far as this thread goes:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Have you got a link to the evidence to back that up?

 

[tek-monkey]

Have you got a link to the evidence to back that up?

What is it with you people and wanting evidence!

Wanna buy some magic beans? Thousands of people agree they're magic, general consensus is they're really really magic, loads of experts agree.

 

[proactive]

Wanna buy some magic beans?

Yes please, how many you got?

 

[Thehooperman]

What is it with you people and wanting evidence!

Wanna buy some magic beans? Thousands of people agree they're magic, general consensus is they're really really magic, loads of experts agree.

And there's increasing evidence from everyone that magic beans work so it must be true. I'll send you a link tomorrow

 

[gilbert grape]

The pointing and sniggering makes you all look stupid, in a world where most of the links get taken down by media that's owned bY those with vested interests rather than interests of ever changing facts and reality.

We know whee the live daily updates were broadcast from.
We know where Full Fact has a ot of backing from.
We know how many MPs have been paid to stay quiet or don;t need to be, because they have heavily vested interests.
All counts the same with the ongoing release of information, that will be pushed down the newsfeeds as it happens.
The whistle blowers on what has gone on are also conveniently tarred as people with grievances, when they have less to lose and just want truth.

They've maximised the situation in reducing population through care home mis-management etc, breaking the NHS through driving staff away with stupid mandates and breaking services that were already struggling, while also changing public perception.
The government vaccine reporting has changed again so figures will gradually become even more out of line to suit their narrative.

In a piece from 2021 it was said " The pharmaceutical industry has built up a “hidden web of policy influence” over dozens of all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) at Westminster by making hundreds of “non-transparent” payments to them, as part of the industry’s wider effort to lobby those in power, researchers claim." This has continued with even greater influence, as was shown in Parliament when Bridgen gave his speech and Andrew Mitchell crossed the house to beckon other MPs to leave with him! If everything that he said was untrue, why have most platforms conveniently taken the speech down, while he hasn't been charged? He couldn't be bought.