I liked @Sprinter idea (I think it was- apologies if I have it wrong) of a specific Covid TV program which address various aspects of Covid... from generalised health advice (think long-Covid etc) to discussions about actual figures being reported. It could allow “scepticism” a real forum for debate... hell, it could have guest editors to control balanced content etc. I’m not sure the Auntie is the best place for it (though it bloodywell should be).
You might just check what ‘confirmed’ actually means in each country. In our case it means a positive PCR test which some studies show has a 91+% false positive rate. Another one of those inconvenient truths that cannot be suppressed indefinitely...... Symptomatic patients are a quite different matter.
I like this resource as relatively clear reading, but the stats are 2-3 weeks behind real time. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...es/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights Should be interesting over the next few weeks
https://cormandrostenreview.com/cease-and-desist-order-fuellmich-drosten/ You can probably find it in French too. The pack of cards is creaking.
At the risk of boring Hubaxe, the underlying problem with counting ‘infections’ is the slavish use of PCR stats which overstate the problem by varying amounts because of issues with swabs, cross contamination and the cycles used. We should place limited faith in anything but symptomatic admissions.
Nae botha! There is no statistical consistency between deaths and ‘infections’ aka ‘cases’ which tells its own story.
Ahh, there’s a filter button on the mobile link that shows just the deaths... I don’t know how to post just that dataset
Serious studies don't mention +90% false positive. That scam started from "One America News Network" relating false information wrongly attributed to the New York Time". And now spreaded on all conspi pages you like so much.
Like The Lancet? It has published papers insisting the UK testing is pretty unreliable. Just watch German Courts. Doubtless you won’t put any figure on a problem you deny even exists.
An abridged version of Dominic Lawson’s column in today’s Sunday Times: Radio comedy producer Ed Morrish tweeted last week “If you take away everyone with underlying conditions, Harold Shipman didn’t kill anyone.” An NHS England statistic that showed of the 47,750 Covid deaths in English hospitals, “only” 3,600 were aged under 60, and, of those under-60s, the overwhelming majority had “underlying conditions”. Translated: look, these are all old and sick people — can’t we forget about them and get on with our lives? This business of underlying conditions requires examination. It includes those that are either not necessarily fatal, or are eminently treatable. If you look at the data on Covid deaths published by the NHS, you will find specified not just underlying conditions such as cancer but also hypertensive disease — high blood pressure to you and me — cerebral palsy, chromosomal abnormalities (that would be my 25-year-old daughter), transplanted organ status, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and even “ill-defined conditions”. People can — do — live fruitfully for decades with such conditions. To write them all off as ripe for the knacker’s yard is, at best, faintly sinister. And while it is true that the average age of death from Covid is 82, someone who has reached that age is — according to the actuaries’ tables — due to live for around another nine years. Indeed, based on what we know of the age and medical histories of Covid victims in the UK, the most authoritative academic research suggests that, on average, they were robbed of 10 years of their life. Criticising those who seem to regard that last decade as all but meaningless and hardly worth preserving at society’s expense, the Conservative MP Neil O’Brien wrote: “A decade is worth a lot. For my parents that decade involved the wedding of one son, the birth of two grandchildren ... amazing summer flowers in their little garden; charity work, friends — and being here for everyone who loves them.” He speaks for millions. thoseaverage-age 82” Covid victims, in their tens of thousands, are — or rather were — also real people, with families and friends. Neither they, nor those with “underlying conditions”, are a less important category of human. so do we use a different test? I thought the PCR is pretty much - if not exactly - the same worldwide. and if the test is the same then false positives (and surely they aren’t as prevalent as you suggest) would be the same in each country?
Wow, yes, fabulous aseptic techniques at 45 cycles and more when the test inventor suggested a maximum of 35 but you should get a result much lower. https://m.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/undercover-in-a-covid-testing-lab/1040974489677291/ And you wonder why I accuse you of lacking curiosity? Your lengthy cut’n’paste demands more attention than most will give.
Although it is worth pointing out. I think we are all aware that these are lives. No one wants to be discussing deaths as acceptable.We are not refusing to treat anyone Death is inevitable, however. and the people who died last year or the year before, or the 5200 people who died in Scotland, over the winter of 2017/18, from flu and pneumonia, deserve but did not get, the same considerations that you are giving to the people whom have died of Covid this last year. It is conter-productive to use this theme at this time. We are all aware that the people, we are unable to save, have lives. None of us are considering a withdrawal of care. We are trying to rationalize figures and graphs, we are both unfamiliar with, and uncertain of, within the bounds of our collective knowledge. I does seem worth investigating, why we, are experiencing a much faster growth in numbers, than any of the other countries show, no matter whos argument it enhances. Have a nice day.
From the day 1 it's accepted PCR is not fully reliable. Still can't see any trace of this 91% false test number you are repeating on all thread you can. ..
Long, scientific and in a foreign language but written by a subject matter expert who you will reject out of prejudice and without reading. It is however well supported by evidence. https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-d...tistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/ You can take a horse to water....... As I said, just wait for the German courts if you doubt the Portuguese. No doubt your scientific qualifications and experience trump this lot: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
