Covid testing and results

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 15
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    while all the questions and debates rage on, thought I'd add some fuel to the fire.

    When someone tests positive are all the family members tested as well?  I haven't heard of entire families being infected at a rate one would expect from something so contagious.  They actually do contact tracing but there doesn't seem to much information about the findings.

    If someone has a positive antibody test, that means they either had it (mild symptoms or asymptomatic)  how about all the people they came into contact with, again family members etc.  shouldn't there be several people they infected?

    any hospital surgery or procedure requires a covid test first and they are finding positives as a result, again why aren't at lead one of their family members admitted?  are the family members even tested in these and similar cases?

    seems this would be easy enough to figure out, track and report the findings.

    I'm not saying covid isn't contagious or dangerous but with this and other lack or misinformation I certainly can understand the confusion and skepticism. 
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,236
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    I’ve heard some states list “probable cases.” I’d assume family is included in this. I’d expect family is tested if one member has it though.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @ILikePie5
    I would assume also, but you'd think they would put that information out there.  They want people to wear masks, wouldn't a story about an entire family or work place coming down with covid be a pretty good motivator?
    Just strikes me as very strange.  The fact we have to assume they are being checked is also very strange, how do we not know for certain?  because of the results?  they don't help the narrative? 
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,236
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    I would assume also, but you'd think they would put that information out there.  They want people to wear masks, wouldn't a story about an entire family or work place coming down with covid be a pretty good motivator?
    Just strikes me as very strange.  The fact we have to assume they are being checked is also very strange, how do we not know for certain?  because of the results?  they don't help the narrative? 
    We were being mislead since the beginning by the “experts.” I still remember when everyone was saying masks are completely ineffective.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @ILikePie5
    consistent and logical information is not very well disseminated is it, maybe because there isn't any, hard to say.
    these "outbreaks" are apparently just random people which again is strange, you'd think an entire workplace, family, church, anyplace that contain 10 or more people.  I love how the group of 10 or less is the magic number but anyway....
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,170
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    I stopped caring about covid the moment Youtube started censoring scientists.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,170
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    I stopped caring about covid the moment Youtube started censoring scientists.
    Trump beat you to it. He never cared about Covid. He also never cared about the 143,000 people it has killed. Or cared about really anyone but himself. 

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,170
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Trump beat you to it. He never cared about Covid. He also never cared about the 143,000 people it has killed. Or cared about really anyone but himself. 

    So what? Everything is censored. You don't know anything. I don't care about Trump when im living in the middle of a 1984 Dystopia.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,170
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5 @TheDredPriateRoberts

    This is a typical Trump "protest"
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,236
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    This is a typical Trump "protest"
    Lmaoo
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    So what? Everything is censored. You don't know anything. I don't care about Trump when im living in the middle of a 1984 Dystopia.
    I agree about the dystopia, but clearly not for the reasons you are. Trump is sending unmarked thugs to attack and "arrest" people. They refuse to say who they are, what federal agency they belong to, or why they are doing things. They grab people off the street and hold them. That is some 1984 shit. But yeah, lets definitely focus on the fact that we need to wear a mask to stop a virus. That is definitely the big problem....
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,471
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen


    Matt Hanckock UK M  urgent review into claims corona-virus deaths were miscounted. 


    Health Secretary Matt Hancock has asked for the examination of Public Health England's (PHE) data - said by researchers to include a "statistical anomaly" by which "no one can ever recover from COVID-19 in England".

    A government source confirmed that Public Health England ( PHE's )current method of calculation means if a person was previously diagnosed with COVID-19 but subsequently died of unrelated causes, their death would still be counted as part of PHE's daily coronavirus death tally.




    A sky news bulletin says that "even if you were knocked down by a lorry and killed your  cause death was recorded as  Covid 19".  But I cannot find that clip

    But does any of  this surprise anyone, at all?
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    But does any of  this surprise anyone, at all?
    with a complete idiot running the UK? not in the slightest. I'm surprised boris can tie his own shoelaces, let alone manage a crisis. 

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,471
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I agree in part. That is because he listened to the penis known as Professor Neil Ferguson who's track record for predictions is nothing short of abysmal.

    Anthony Stephen Fauci  an American physician and immunologist took his own wild  estimations straight from Professor Neil Ferguson Imperial College London. There can be nothing more reliable , can there,  than a physician who doesn't have his own mind. Or research for himself the reliability of whom he is taking his advice.

    The Spectator asked some very good question and questions that we should all be asking our own MP's (UK) or Congressmen or the female version (USA)

      (1) In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. He told the Guardian that ‘around 40 million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak… There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.’ In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
    How did he get this forecast so wrong? 

    (2) In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths.

    In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected.

    Why did the Imperial team overestimate the fatality of the disease? Or to borrow Robinson's words to Hancock this morning: 'that prediction wasn't just nonsense was it? It was dangerous nonsense.'


    (3) In 2001 the Ferguson and the  Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
    It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.

    Does Ferguson acknowledge that his modelling in 2001 was flawed and if so, has he taken steps to avoid future mistakes?

    (4) In 2002, Ferguson predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.

    Does Ferguson believe that his ‘worst-case scenario’ in this case was too high? If so, what lessons has he learnt when it comes to his modelling since?


    (5) Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’

    Has the Imperial team’s Covid-19 model been subject to outside scrutiny from other experts, and are the team questioning their own assumptions used? What safeguards are in place?


    (6) Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’


    Has the Imperial team’s Covid-19 model been subject to outside scrutiny from other experts, and are the team questioning their own assumptions used? What safeguards are in place?

    (7) On 22 March, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.

    How many assumptions in the Imperial model are still based on influenza and is there any risk that the modelling is flawed because of these assumptions?

    Ferguson "resigned" from advising government for apparently having his married lover around for "dinner"  during lock down.  Very noble don't  you think?  Considering that his bullshite has wrecked the  economy here in the UK.

    The odd thing here is that no one knows (to my knowledge) how Ferguson was outed for breaking lock-down rules?

    Only a few days later Ferguson took what seems to be revenge on the UK government and claimed that " had the UK government locked down only a week earlier, the death rate were experiencing in the UK  would have been halved"


    Prof Neil Ferguson: UK would have halved coronavirus death toll by locking down a week earlier.