Local lockdown

[xmfd]

I was under the impression that there were a lot more false negatives than false positives from the pcr swabs. I could be wrong and I can't be arsed to look up any papers etc.

It’s a fact that the PCR test is 95-99% accurate. That’s from Public Health England. 220,000 tests a day means an absolute minimum of 2200 false positives every day. Think about what that means when looking at the daily new cases.

This thing just isn’t as easy to catch as is being made out. My 6 year old was sent home from school as one kid tested positive in a class of 32. No one else caught it, not one other kid who had been in the same classroom for 4 days.

The media have got people terrified and no one is questioning if we are on the right path with this, it’s just being accepted.

The media obviously have exaggerated some facts and use scaremongering to sell papers because that's what they do. The fact is the virus spreads exponentially and kills people, and without the lockdown we would be absolutely fucked now.

 

[Tonton Zola Moukoko]

So somehow your research is better than my actual qualifications and real life workplace experience, because you can get the views of clinicians who aren’t afraid to toe the line?

Imagine being so desperate for attention you have to make this shit up man.


Thanks.

To address your post now I’ve seen that, it would seem to suggest that the false positive rate is lower than 5%, based on the paragraph at the top of page two, with the median at 2.4%.

I don’t really agree with what I think is the argument you’re making, that the media are driving people into a frenzy because of over-reporting due to false positives.

So if we take the median of 2.4 False positives and 220,000 tests a day......

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Just a reminder that only 0.06% of the country have died from this virus - the vast majority of those deaths being elderly people (particularly those in care homes) and people with underlying health conditions.

Not 6% or 0.6%. 0.06%. Let that sink in and then start asking some questions.

 

[banburysafc]

Just a reminder that only 0.06% of the country have died from this virus - the vast majority of those deaths being elderly people (particularly those in care homes) and people with underlying health conditions.

Not 6% or 0.6%. 0.06%. Let that sink in and then start asking some questions.

Do you not think it would be more if we didn't lockdown? What's your point?

 

[West_Winger]

Just a reminder that only 0.06% of the country have died from this virus - the vast majority of those deaths being elderly people (particularly those in care homes) and people with underlying health conditions.

Not 6% or 0.6%. 0.06%. Let that sink in and then start asking some questions.

Such as “why does posting misleading stats make me think I’m cleverer than actual scientists?”

Do you not think it would be more if we didn't lockdown? What's your point?

He seems to be under the impression that Covid can kill people it doesn’t infect.

 

[Frijj]

So if we take the median of 2.4 False positives and 220,000 tests a day......

I’m sure you can do the maths so what’s the actual point you’re intending to make here?

Just a reminder that only 0.06% of the country have died from this virus - the vast majority of those deaths being elderly people (particularly those in care homes) and people with underlying health conditions.

Not 6% or 0.6%. 0.06%. Let that sink in and then start asking some questions.

Again, you’re being misleading. You do not seem to understand the difference between mortality within an entire population and mortality within the population of those infected.

If there was a virus that killed 50% of those infected, but it had only infected 100,000 people so far, we’d have 50,000 deaths, or 0.08% of the population.

Would you then also be so blasé about it? Doubtful.

You simply will not accept the flaws in your workings out because this is just an ego trip for you, to peddle your bullshit views and get notoriety on an Internet forum

 

[Shangri-La]

So somehow your research is better than my actual qualifications and real life workplace experience, because you can get the views of clinicians who aren’t afraid to toe the line?

Imagine being so desperate for attention you have to make this shit up man.


Thanks.

To address your post now I’ve seen that, it would seem to suggest that the false positive rate is lower than 5%, based on the paragraph at the top of page two, with the median at 2.4%.

I don’t really agree with what I think is the argument you’re making, that the media are driving people into a frenzy because of over-reporting due to false How many Covid diagnoses are false positives? | The Spectator

Read the above article dopey. He's an Oxford professor who has more relevant qualifications and work place experience than a glorified administrator like yourself.

We should be listening to what he's saying and not you, or some other number cruncher like 'Professor Neil Ferguson', or any other twit with vested interests.

 

[Tonton Zola Moukoko]

I’m sure you can do the maths so what’s the actual point you’re intending to make here?

I thought it was pretty obvious. The country is driving off a cliff based on numbers with glaring inaccuracies. Blind faith in “the scientists” who aren’t being questioned. There’s no discussion on this in the media, or very little anyway. I think we need to come up with something better or at least talk about it.

 

[Frijj]

Imagine being so thick you can’t even quote someone properly

I thought it was pretty obvious. The country is driving off a cliff based on numbers with glaring inaccuracies. Blind faith in “the scientists” who aren’t being questioned. There’s no discussion on this in the media, or very little anyway. I think we need to come up with something better or at least talk about it.

A test with above 95% sensitivity and specificity is actually a very good test, IMO, especially given this is a novel virus.

I understand initial assessments of the sensitivity were markedly lower than the 98% or so it could well be.

Hospitalisations where clinicians can assess symptoms and give a PCR test are the closest we have to a gold standard, but can we honestly afford to wait for hospitalisations to rise, before locking down again - because by the time they rise, haven’t we already lost control?

 

[Shangri-La]

Carl Heneghan — Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

He's a clinical epidemiologist. You are a no mark. I'll take his advice,thanks.

 

[Frijj]

Carl Heneghan — Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

He's a clinical epidemiologist. You are a no mark. I'll take his advice,thanks.

No mark

A bit rich coming from you, hiding behind your third or fourth username.

I have massive respect for him and his achievements but he is more or less a lone voice at the moment.

He may well be right - this is what the anti-lockdown ideologues don’t understand. The picture constantly evolves and we must follow what the consensus in the whole body of evidence tells us.

Your lot however only want to follow the evidence you agree with.

 

[Ilios]

Just a reminder that only 0.06% of the country have died from this virus - the vast majority of those deaths being elderly people (particularly those in care homes) and people with underlying health conditions.

Not 6% or 0.6%. 0.06%. Let that sink in and then start asking some questions.

Which questions should be asked? Questions like "how do I make fallacious extrapolations from incomplete data?'

Of course coronavirus has only killed a tiny proportion of the population - most people aren't going to die who catch it, and the vast majority of the country haven't even had it!

Why haven't they had it? Oh yeah, we locked half of the country in their houses for months, to stop it from spreading like wildlife and potentially adversely affecting millions of people.

It's like asking pointing to a load of closed airports and extrapolating that previous plane crashes/statistics must involve some conspiracy or hidden agenda, because there hasn't been one while the airports were shut.

It isn't just 'death or instantly 100% recovery' with COVID either. There's a lot of grey in the middle where people will be left with long-term damage, weakened immune systems and scarred lungs etc, to varying degrees.

 

[Tonton Zola Moukoko]

No mark

A bit rich coming from you, hiding behind your third or fourth username.

I have massive respect for him and his achievements but he is more or less a lone voice at the moment.

Hardly a lone voice, just MSM isn’t giving people a platform.

Anders Tegnell and the Swedish Covid experiment | Free to read

The controversial epidemiologist believes lockdown is ‘using a hammer to kill a fly’. Could he be proved right?

www.ft.com

How dangerous is Covid? A Swedish doctor’s perspective | The Spectator

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[Frijj]

Hardly a lone voice, just MSM isn’t giving people a platform.

Anders Tegnell and the Swedish Covid experiment | Free to read

The controversial epidemiologist believes lockdown is ‘using a hammer to kill a fly’. Could he be proved right?

www.ft.com

How dangerous is Covid? A Swedish doctor’s perspective | The Spectator

www.spectator.co.uk

Oh come on man. MSM, really?

You seem like a level headed person with a healthy degree of skepticism but almost all uses of that term are used in a conspiracist context.

The “MSM” has no reason to deny a voice to dissenting experts. None.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Which questions should be asked? Questions like "how do I make fallacious extrapolations from incomplete data?'

Of course coronavirus has only killed a tiny proportion of the population - most people aren't going to die who catch it, and the vast majority of the country haven't even had it!

Why haven't they had it? Oh yeah, we locked half of the country in their houses for months, to stop it from spreading like wildlife and potentially adversely affecting millions of people.

It's like asking pointing to a load of closed airports and extrapolating that previous plane crashes/statistics must involve some conspiracy or hidden agenda, because there hasn't been one while the airports were shut.

It isn't just 'death or instantly 100% recovery' with COVID either. There's a lot of grey in the middle where people will be left with long-term damage, weakened immune systems and scarred lungs etc, to varying degrees.

Do we know how many people have had it?

 

[West_Winger]

Hardly a lone voice, just MSM isn’t giving people a platform.

Anders Tegnell and the Swedish Covid experiment | Free to read

The controversial epidemiologist believes lockdown is ‘using a hammer to kill a fly’. Could he be proved right?

www.ft.com

How dangerous is Covid? A Swedish doctor’s perspective | The Spectator

www.spectator.co.uk

“THE MSM IS SILENCING OPPOSING VIEWS!!”

While posting a link to the Financial Times. Amazing work.

 

[Shangri-La]

No mark

A bit rich coming from you, hiding behind your third or fourth username.

I have massive respect for him and his achievements but he is more or less a lone voice at the moment.

He may well be right - this is what the anti-lockdown ideologues don’t understand. The picture constantly evolves and we must follow what the consensus in the whole body of evidence tells us.

Your lot however only want to follow the evidence you agree with.

Imagine being presented the evidence from an 'attention seeker' by someone more qualified than yourself and then still readily dismissing it.

It's not the anti-lockdown analogues who don't understand - it's quite the opposite - it's people like you and the mainstream media who are the problem.

 

[Tonton Zola Moukoko]

Oh come on man. MSM, really?

You seem like a level headed person with a healthy degree of skepticism but almost all uses of that term are used in a conspiracist context.

The “MSM” has no reason to deny a voice to dissenting experts. None.

By no means a conspiracy theorist, I may have missed people with an alternative view on tv but I have Sky News on in the background while working from home and it’s just non stop Covid hysteria.

You’ve just said “your lot” only want to follow the evidence you agree with. Not what you’re doing by dismissing the links on this page?

“THE MSM IS SILENCING OPPOSING VIEWS!!”

While posting a link to the Financial Times. Amazing work.

FT is hardly Sky News mind.

 

[Frijj]

Imagine being presented the evidence from an 'attention seeker' by someone more qualified than yourself and then still readily dismissing it.

It's not the anti-lockdown analogues who don't understand - it's quite the opposite - it's people like you and the mainstream media who are the problem.

How did you get “readily dismissing” from “he may well be right”?



Not piss wise you lad, but since you’re onto multiple usernames to fulfil your desperate need for attention, I’m not particularly surprised.

By no means a conspiracy theorist, I may have missed people with an alternative view on tv but I have Sky News on in the background while working from home and it’s just non stop Covid hysteria.

You’ve just said “your lot” only want to follow the evidence you agree with. Not what you’re doing by dismissing the links on this page?


FT is hardly Sky News mind.

What have I dismissed? I said Heneghan may well be right.

Sometimes of course an outside expert is right, they take an approach the inside group does not and they make a breakthrough, sometimes a lone voice on the inside is right too.

Ultimately I think we have to go with the consensus of the evidence as a whole and the best forum for that is SAGE.

If SAGE say that these local lockdowns are not necessary, or that the rise in cases is simply due to poor testing then I’ll back them, because we should follow science, not ideology.

 

[dangermows]

What about sitting in the garden outside?

I recond that's definitely safe. Such a shame the government can't trust people to keep a distance.