• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

LutonSpurs said:
Which is my point. It could have been contaminated or mixed up. I'm not sure we can convincingly say France had its first case back then.
Click to expand...
Given that it was specifically being tested for COVID-19, I find it unlikely that it would have got contaminated during testing. It's also a huge coincidence that a patient shows the rare combination of symptoms and his blood just happened to get cross-contaminated with that exact virus. Overwhelmingly more likely that he had it.

Quite possible that it got contaminated when it was taken and stored but that doesn't really change the date.

Other countries have made similar discoveries too. Let's not forget that the only reason the whole world has set the start dates they have is because of dates given to us by the Chinese govt - and they've been lying throughout this.
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
I think the French and Spanish have been using an antibody test. And I read the reason they've done a mass test, is to test the test.

We have been using a PCR test over a shortish period with 5k odd families who have repeatedly taken the test to see if they currently have it. This is the first big (ish) data collection that can be factored in to the R figure as previously various smaller and sometimes unreliable data, plus observational data would be thrown into the modelling pot to spew out something that was far from reliable.
Click to expand...
We’re testing 25000 people monthly to get the R number
And the test we use is very flawed
 
Bedfordspurs said:
We’re testing 25000 people monthly to get the R number
And the test we use is very flawed
Click to expand...
The tests until the last couple of weeks were focussed on people that likely had it or people that are/were exposed to those that had it, or needed a test to carry on the essential work they were doing. Obviously biased towards positive results.

In what way ix the PCR test flawed (not saying it's not, just interested)?
 
The tests are fine. Our supposed approach to test, track and trace isn't. If they are supposedly doing it then it's not being done very well or very ostensibly.
 
SteveAWOL said:
Doesn’t bode well for herd immunity if the studies prove accurate once Roche’s antibody test is in widespread use.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1260663975978688519
Click to expand...
I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue how long herd immunity takes.

Take Madrid. If your start date is set ie initial case/infection, then it takes a while to bloom out and raise the R rate to a point that spread becomes rampant.

What we need to estimate was how rampant it is before the Madrid lockdown intervened. Because a strict lockdown like the Spanish set really is a hammer blow for the virus ie it can't get out of a individual s house.

So although a period has passed, 14 weeks, 8 of them has been in lockdown. Now what we need to know is if 11% is a bad herd immunity progress rate or actually quite good given the history I've outlined?

Edit: yes I know that people may not be immune post infection...that one's is still up'in the air.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
The tests until the last couple of weeks were focussed on people that likely had it or people that are/were exposed to those that had it, or needed a test to carry on the essential work they were doing. Obviously biased towards positive results.

In what way ix the PCR test flawed (not saying it's not, just interested)?
Click to expand...
It’s all about timing of the test and the partial application of taking the test
 
scaramanga said:
No, I just don't work myself up into a panic over every little thing.

How do you explain such a low death rate over 6 months (probably more) if it's both highly contagious and highly lethal?
Click to expand...

From what I understand, globally there are many reports where they have found traces of the virus's from patients in December which throws the so called play book that everyone keeps referring to up in the air. As I said weeks and weeks ago show me the guide book on how this should be played out because s Germany, the leading light for many in this have found in recent weeks, there is no hard and fast 100% success, thats not a slight at them, thats just a reality of a virus people know F-All about.

However I still maintain based on the statistical data which seems to be the only facts that are worth anything in this I feel the panic button has been pushed because the public wanted a greater say in this, Refer back to SpurMeUp stating we changed course because of public outcry, which now seems to mean we are falling off another cliff for the death of 0.07% of the population who fall into the old and vulnerable list.
 
Was amusing on question time last night that the Labour MP spent the whole show talking about clear guidance and communication then refused to answer several times whether Labour supported any easing up of the lockdown.
 
Grays_1890 said:
From what I understand, globally there are many reports where they have found traces of the virus's from patients in December which throws the so called play book that everyone keeps referring to up in the air. As I said weeks and weeks ago show me the guide book on how this should be played out because s Germany, the leading light for many in this have found in recent weeks, there is no hard and fast 400% success, thats not a slight at them, thats just a reality of a virus people know F-All about.

However I still maintain based on the statistical data which seems to be the only facts that are worth anything in this I feel the panic button has been pushed because the public wanted a greater say in this, Refer back to SpurMeUp stating we changed course because of public outcry, which now seems to mean we are falling off another cliff for the death of 0.07% of the population who fall into the old and vulnerable list.
Click to expand...


Social media has a lot to answer for already, but this has taken it up another level.

Did we lock down for Hong Kong flu?

People were always sadly going to die, but instead of shielding the most at risk we went for everyone and so potentially lost more by taking the eye off the ball.
 
Legohamster said:
People were always sadly going to die, but instead of shielding the most at risk we went for everyone and so potentially lost more by taking the eye off the ball.
Click to expand...

Yep and like I have said many times to accept death as part of this is a tough conversation to have but if your crusade is to purely save lives and not society you are going to lose the battle regardless, be it 20,000 or 40,000 you lose the short term fight. The longer term and real fight is society and the decimation of life for millions and millions of people globally because of an enforced lock-down for millions upon millions of those who are likely to suffer little of no illness at all. The reality is masked by very real and very horrific stories but ones that can be drilled down on if you protect those most vulnerable and you actually cut through the noise which is that as horrific as those stories are its not the same for the vast majority of society.
 
awesome dawson said:
Cold and flu symptoms in English winter, who’d have thought.
Click to expand...
These aren't normal cold and flu symptoms though are they?

In fact, in the *cough* decades I've been alive, I've never once seen anyone with these symptoms who didn't have pneumonia - and they didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back