Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[N Lincs Jambo]

Just now, Nucky Thompson said:

The PCR tests for currant cases of Covid-19 are very specific for material that is only expressed for the covid-19 virus.

Having a cold or Flu won't change that. The test doesn't pick up the four human coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

 

You sure about that? The research paper by Dr Mike Yeadon which I quoted further up the thread says it might be possible. Here's the direct quote:

 

"It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test"

 

Now whilst I agree that this doesn't necessarily mean they definitely do, you have stated that the test dosn't pick up the four human coronaviruses which cause the common cold. Could you post any links you might have to papers in scientific journals which 100% support this?

[heartstastic]

13 minutes ago, Riddley Walker said:

 

How could you possibly know when it is to be completed? You know this is exactly the same argument that's been predicted for decades by fringe cults, and it's always proven to be wrong. They just find something new to attach the theory too, and coronavirus is the current one. Convenient that the end goal is a decade away, by which time you can completely change the goalposts. The lack of logic shown here is actually terrifying man. Any idea how central banks actually work? And no, they're not all owned by the Rothschilds. If you could please share the evidence that shows the first bit in bold is true, I'm sure the board would appreciate the heads up before our money gets changed into the new NWO currency. But I'm sure you'll just tell me to do my own research, the usual response.

 

As to your revised bet, that's completely altered it. Restrictions could still be in place for a multitude of reasons in a year and won't necessarily mean we're about to be overrun by some super-secret global organisation. Since you say "it will be apparent to all that this plan is rolling out in the months and years ahead', a better bet would be to say that 100 quid on there being any evidence at all by October 2021 that we're heading towards a one-world currency. You in?

 

 

Yeah i'm in

[heartstastic]

14 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

The PCR tests for currant cases of Covid-19 are very specific for material that is only expressed for the covid-19 virus.

Having a cold or Flu won't change that. The test doesn't pick up the four human coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

Could you point me to the evidence that shows that the covid 19 virus has been isolated and identified as per Koch's Postulates...https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/how-scientists-identify-virus

 

[Nucky Thompson]

19 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

You sure about that? The research paper by Dr Mike Yeadon which I quoted further up the thread says it might be possible. Here's the direct quote:

 

"It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test"

 

Now whilst I agree that this doesn't necessarily mean they definitely do, you have stated that the test dosn't pick up the four human coronaviruses which cause the common cold. Could you post any links you might have to papers in scientific journals which 100% support this?

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-pcr-test-accuracy/

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

It's seems to be those who are prone to throwing overly-dramatic strops, like children having a trantrum, who are the ones who keep moaning about being not being treated like adults. Strange that.

 

 

 

 

One way of looking at it. On the other hand some children are docile and will do everything they are told to do without question whereas others challenge things if they see that they have no logic or reasoning behind them.

I think the latter probably make the better  adults. But just my opinion

[Robbofan99]

5693 new UK positives today (27-Sep). Below is the chart from 21-Sep briefing where they showed an "example scenario" of positives doubling every 7 days. Actuals overlaid in blue. The lighter blue is where the actual was more than the "example" to show to extra.

 

 

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

1 hour ago, heartstastic said:

Go and get the evidence for the pcr test that tests specfically for Covid 19. Even better go and get the evidence that shows that any scientific goverment body has identified, isolated and performed Koch's Postulates to show that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between a virus and a clinical disease.

 

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7105

 

https://www.immunology.ox.ac.uk/covid-19/literature-digest-old/the-pathogenicity-of-sars-cov-2-in-hace2-transgenic-mice

 

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

27 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

You sure about that? The research paper by Dr Mike Yeadon which I quoted further up the thread says it might be possible. Here's the direct quote:

 

"It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test"

 

Now whilst I agree that this doesn't necessarily mean they definitely do, you have stated that the test dosn't pick up the four human coronaviruses which cause the common cold. Could you post any links you might have to papers in scientific journals which 100% support this?

 

A blog is not a research paper ffs.

[Don Dan]

Re the PCR test.

How the current SARS-CoV-2 assays work

The full genome of the novel coronavirus was published on January 10 of this year, just weeks after the disease was first identified in Wuhan, China. A week later, a group of researchers led by German scientists released the first diagnostic protocol for COVID-19 using swabbed samples from a patient’s nose and throat; this PCR-based protocol has since been selected by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The assay was initially developed from genetic similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and its close relative SARS, and later refined using the SARS-CoV-2 genome data to target viral genes unique to the newly discovered virus. In particular, the test detects the presence of SARS-CoV-2’s E gene, which codes for the envelope that surrounds the viral shell, and the gene for the enzyme RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

[N Lincs Jambo]

8 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-pcr-test-accuracy/

Nucky, fullfact.org is not a scientific journal. I would also seriously question its independence given that it received the best part of £800K from Facebook alone in 2019 and given the amount of censorship this year in Facebook, especially of doctors and scientists who are questioning the current narrative I would not personally accept anything from that source at face value. I am though very interested in seeing papers which have been published in reputable scientific journals and put forward for peer review.

 

[Victorian]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

One way of looking at it. On the other hand some children are docile and will do everything they are told to do without question whereas others challenge things if they see that they have no logic or reasoning behind them.

I think the latter probably make the better  adults. But just my opinion

 

Yeah,  but that's going on the presumption that people following what they're told is necessary have done so without question,  or without at least giving it some consideration.

 

Your logic and reasoning aren't as sound as you had hoped,  it seems.  

[The Internet]

8 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

5693 new UK positives today (27-Sep). Below is the chart from 21-Sep briefing where they showed an "example scenario" of positives doubling every 7 days. Actuals overlaid in blue. The lighter blue is where the actual was more than the "example" to show to extra.

 

 

 

 

It's mad that they allowed these guys to go out and showcase worst case scenarios when they must have known it would get picked apart when the worst case scenario didn't happen. Just leads to more anti-science chat. 

[graygo]

12 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

5693 new UK positives today (27-Sep). Below is the chart from 21-Sep briefing where they showed an "example scenario" of positives doubling every 7 days. Actuals overlaid in blue. The lighter blue is where the actual was more than the "example" to show to extra.

 

 

 

Be interesting to see this graph in the next 2 or 3 weeks.

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Yeah,  but that's going on the presumption that people following what they're told is necessary have done so without question,  or without at least giving it some consideration.

 

Your logic and reasoning aren't as sound as you had hoped,  it seems.  

You mean a bit like the assumption that people who question or challenge  what they are told to do have not thought about it. Even.if they actually do what they are told to do.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Francis Albert

[Dennis Reynolds]

6 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

Nucky, fullfact.org is not a scientific journal. I would also seriously question its independence given that it received the best part of £800K from Facebook alone in 2019 and given the amount of censorship this year in Facebook, especially of doctors and scientists who are questioning the current narrative I would not personally accept anything from that source at face value. I am though very interested in seeing papers which have been published in reputable scientific journals and put forward for peer review.

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350782/

 

 

Quote

We found that in trials evaluating the RdRp/Hel gene, there were no cross-reactions with other pathogenic coronaviruses and human respiratory pathogens in cell culture or clinical samples.

 

[heartstastic]

1 minute ago, LMc said:

 

https://www.immunology.ox.ac.uk/covid-19/literature-digest-old/the-pathogenicity-of-sars-cov-2-in-hace2-transgenic-mice

 

 

transgenic mice

trans·gen·ic mice

(tranz'jen-ik),

Mice that have a piece of foreign DNA integrated into their genome.

 

So a test on mice that have been genitically alterted  proves that it does the same to humans?...they have satifised the criteria that they can infect frankenstien mice with something. I did not realise that mice were having a covid 19 pandemic.

 

Where are the human trials...there must be some....after all any vaccine you recieve contains the pathogen your meant to be getting protection from.

 

Taken from the bottom of that page.

 

Translatability: Study does not focus on translatable research.

Main limitations: Although hACE2 was identified as the required attachment receptor, the study did not validate whether the same cellular proteases are used for S protein priming in mice as in humans (TMPRSS2 and CatB/L). If this is not the case it could significantly hinder this model for use in testing treatments for COVID19

[Robbofan99]

3 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

It's mad that they allowed these guys to go out and showcase worst case scenarios when they must have known it would get picked apart when the worst case scenario didn't happen. Just leads to more anti-science chat. 

Shameful scare mongering , so transparent and explicit . 

[Robbofan99]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

Be interesting to see this graph in the next 2 or 3 weeks.

Yes early days yet I guess but still eye opening 

[Robbofan99]

“ The mortality rates are now far less than the season flu. It would be terrible if you shared these new numbers. Then people wouldn’t be under the tyranny of fear. That would be bad 😉 
Repost from @robertfkennedyjr 
New CDC data show that Coronavirus mortality rates are now well below those for a seasonal flu. Seasonal flu infection/mortality rates(IFR)according to Tony Fauci are .1% (NEJM). CDC’s latest data show the COVID IFR for Americans in 0-19 age group is O.003% and in the 19-49 age group 0.02%. Combining 0-49 year olds, which represent 64% of US population, the IFR is 0.01% which means flu is 10x as lethal as COVID.  This number is 1/50th the death rates predicted by modeling funded by Bill Gates that Dr Fauci cited to justify the lockdowns in March. CDC’s new data show that COVID IFRs for people over 65 are much higher,though still lower than flu in that group. Furthermore,these numbers are probably inflated by unwise protocols adopted by the Northeastern states early in the pandemic of shoehorning seniors into deadly nursing homes and overuse of respirators. These data raise three  crucial questions: 
1.If Covid -19 is now less deadly than seasonal flu,can we continue to justify lockdowns and mask mandates? 
2.Is there any point in waiting around for fast tracked ,zero liability vaccines with high risk profiles and meager efficacy?
3.Do pandemics disappear when mortalities cease or when it’s no longer in the media’s financial  interest to frighten and shame the public?” 

[Victorian]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

You mean a bit like the assumption that people who question or challenge  what they are told have not thought about it. Even.if they actually do what they are told to do.

 

That's right.   Like most arguments of a similar type,  the same principle can work for both sides.    Anyway,  my purpose was to debunk your fledgling notion that those who follow the guidance and official version of events have done so without question or challenge.   Purpose completed.

[Dennis Reynolds]

4 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

transgenic mice

trans·gen·ic mice

(tranz'jen-ik),

Mice that have a piece of foreign DNA integrated into their genome.

 

So a test on mice that have been genitically alterted  proves that it does the same to humans?...they have satifised the criteria that they can infect frankenstien mice with something. I did not realise that mice were having a covid 19 pandemic.

 

Where are the human trials...there must be some....after all any vaccine you recieve contains the pathogen your meant to be getting protection from.

 

Taken from the bottom of that page.

 

Translatability: Study does not focus on translatable research.

Main limitations: Although hACE2 was identified as the required attachment receptor, the study did not validate whether the same cellular proteases are used for S protein priming in mice as in humans (TMPRSS2 and CatB/L). If this is not the case it could significantly hinder this model for use in testing treatments for COVID19

 

Where does Koch's postulates mention humans specifically? Stop moving the goalposts.

[N Lincs Jambo]

9 minutes ago, LMc said:

 

A blog is not a research paper ffs.

You are correct, a blog is not a research paper however contained within that “blog” is a link to a paper published on 7th September 2020 (updated on 8th September) and authored by Professor Paul Kirkham, Professor of cell Biology and Head of Respiratory Disease Research group at Wolverhampton University; Dr Mike Yeadon, former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma ltd and Barry Thomas, Epidemiologist.

 

The paper is titled “How Likely is a Second Wave?”

 

They are hardly “bloggers” are they???

[N Lincs Jambo]

14 minutes ago, LMc said:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350782/

 

 

 

Now that is a research paper. Not had time to read it yet but I will do. Cheers for sharing!

[Bull's-eye]

So, how long have we got left ?

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

That's right.   Like most arguments of a similar type,  the same principle can work for both sides.    Anyway,  my purpose was to debunk your fledgling notion that those who follow the guidance and official version of events have done so without question or challenge.   Purpose completed.

Did you read the post i was initially responding to. You know the one characterising those with a different view point as children having strops. I was countering that with an alternative proposition to illustrate how stupid that proposition was. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Did you read the post i was initially responding to. You know the one characterising those with a different view point as children having strops. I was countering that with an alternative proposition to illustrate how stupid that proposition was. 

 

I did.  Your suggestion was that that I referenced.   I didn't post in order to support some other person's thought.   It was to debunk your one.

[heartstastic]

5 minutes ago, LMc said:

 

Where does Koch's postulates mention humans specifically? Stop moving the goalposts.

Well seeing this whole thing is about Covid 19 infecting humans and not GMO mice. When you take an organisim from nature and alter it with something else's dna and then infect it with a virus..that does not in an way prove that it will do the same thing to a different organisim. So until they can prove it does the same thing to a human i would say there Koch's postualtes test is a false equivalence.

[Ray Gin]

 

50 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

5693 new UK positives today (27-Sep). Below is the chart from 21-Sep briefing where they showed an "example scenario" of positives doubling every 7 days. Actuals overlaid in blue. The lighter blue is where the actual was more than the "example" to show to extra.

 

 

 

 

 

The new measures appear to be working well.  

 

 

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

I see anyone who has had COVID and never died aka 99.997% of people are now classed as "survivors"

 

 

It used to be classed as "getting over" the flu not ****ing surviving it. It is not a ****ing plane crash.

 

 

But you will probably never get over so called Long Covid. I have seen this defined as having symptoms of Long Covid even if you have never been tested positive for Covid. The symptoms of Long Covid comprise a very long list many of them not significant factors in diagnosing Covid. For example I suffer from.fatigue and muscle pain both appearing since the pandemic began. So I am a victim of Long Covid whether or not I have had Covid. I can think.of more obvious reasons for my symptoms but I still.meet the test for Long Covid by the definition.

 

In a way it goes even beyond the previous nonsense that once tested  positive for Covid you die of Covid however later you died or whatever you die of. By this definition of Long Covid you skip the need for a positive test.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Francis Albert

[spirt of 98]

7 hours ago, Robbofan99 said:

You have zero understanding or empathy of individual experiences of lockdown and the effects on them , or fail to mention the long term effects of it . Advocating the use of the military on the streets says everything about you . Perhaps you should move to China or North Korea , may suit your warped ideology living there . They’ll wrap you up in cotton wool but be careful if you breach their rules , you’ll be brown bread in a minute . 

Don’t think I advocated it, I did point out that Boris mentioned it as an option. An option that will be utilised if folk can’t check their selfish behaviour. 

[spirt of 98]

7 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

 Bit out of touch to be honest. More people every day can't make ends meet and you sound like you're mugging them off.

 

Please explain how I am mugging them off? 
 

I would also add that if folk can’t follow the rules there will be more draconian enforcement of rules and more jobs lost.

 

I don’t think the current rules are too shocking. You can still meet family and friends in the pub it not as if we have Police / Army roaming the street hitting folk with sticks. 
 

 

 

[heartstastic]

15 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

Well seeing this whole thing is about Covid 19 infecting humans and not GMO mice. When you take an organisim from nature and alter it with something else's dna and then infect it with a virus..that does not in an way prove that it will do the same thing to a different organisim. So until they can prove it does the same thing to a human i would say there Koch's postualtes test is a false equivalence.

https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/in-vivo-study-design-challenges.html

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

The new measures appear to be working well.  

 

 

Which is exactly what will be trotted out in the coming weeks. Might be true of course but we'll never know.

[Francis Albert]

20 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I did.  Your suggestion was that that I referenced.   I didn't post in order to support some other person's thought.   It was to debunk your one.

Debunk it completely  out of the context in which I posted my thought.

 

 

[Robbofan99]

6 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

The new measures appear to be working well.  

 

 

Cannot win with you types. Seriously. 

[Norm]

We've used transgenic mice for ages in medical research and they've been a huge help in developing treatments for various genetic illnesses work. Dismissing research purely because they've used transgenic mice is a bit off. 

[heartstastic]

1 minute ago, Normthebarman said:

We've used transgenic mice for ages in medical research and they've been a huge help in developing treatments for various genetic illnesses work. Dismissing research purely because they've used transgenic mice is a bit off. 

https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/in-vivo-study-design-challenges.html

[graygo]

1 minute ago, Normthebarman said:

We've used transgenic mice for ages in medical research and they've been a huge help in developing treatments for various genetic illnesses work. Dismissing research purely because they've used transgenic mice is a bit off. 

Nonsense.

The use of transgenic mice is only ever acceptable if the results suit your argument. 😉

[Robbofan99]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

Which is exactly what will be trotted out in the coming weeks. Might be true of course but we'll never know.

The new measures only came into effect on Friday , well a lot of them

[spirt of 98]

That’s Cardiff lockdown you now need a reasonable excuse to enter or leave Cardiff. 
 

People this and worse are in the post if you canny behave. I am sick of all the bull excuses this shit is getting worse and will get a hell of a lot worse if you don’t behave. 
 

Just think how shite it’ll be when we are in full lockdown every time you think about doing something COVID  stupid / COVID risky. 

[graygo]

2 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

The new measures only came into effect on Friday , well a lot of them

In a couple of weeks they will be hoping that fact is forgotten about by most people.

[Robbofan99]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

In a couple of weeks they will be hoping that fact is forgotten about by most people.

and a few on this too mate. 

[Victorian]

We'll all be happy if there's no exponential growth.   We'll all be very relieved if the projected 6 months of restrictions isn't necessary.   

[Ray Gin]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

In a couple of weeks they will be hoping that fact is forgotten about by most people.

 

7 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

The new measures only came into effect on Friday , well a lot of them

 

The "rule of 6" was introduced on Monday 14 September.

The more recent changes kicked in on Wednesday 23rd September.

Friday was when they were enforcable by law. Most people who aren't selfish w@nks were abiding by the new rules before then.

 

 

[Back to 2005]

4 hours ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Not according to the scientist I referred to, Dr Mike Yeadon. Here's a quote from his research paper published one week ago:

 

As of the most recent ONS survey, to a first approximation, the virus was found in 1 in every 1000 people. This can also be written as 0.1%. So when all these 10,000 people are tested in Pillar 2, you’d expect 10 true positives to be found (false negatives can be an issue when the virus is very common, but in this community setting, it is statistically unimportant and so I have chosen to ignore it, better to focus only on false positives). (my emphasis)

 

I will also link in the full paper which is very informative, as are the links from the paper to other information sources:

 

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/?s=09&fbclid=IwAR0V44esmfOUWhI_ZKKLCtePiWrZXqA3pOW-H9deh8_ZVUOR0-inqbgcE6g

 

Also here's an amazing video which not only explains in very clear terms about the numbers of false positives and why they matter statistically, but also that the government has used statistical fraud in a criminal manner to justify all current restrictions on people:

 

 

 

It's an absolute scandal that they are getting away with this and the MSM are as culpable as the government . 

But they are still managing to fool the majority of the country. 

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

The "rule of 6" was introduced on Monday 14 September.

The more recent changes kicked in on Wednesday 23rd September.

Friday was when they were enforcable by law. Most people who aren't selfish w@nks were abiding by the new rules before then.

 

 

 

Which of those 3 timelines would a non- selfish w@nk need to have followed before being put in place?

 

Edit:. Just read your post again, think I get it now.

Edited September 27, 2020 by graygo

[manaliveits105]

2 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

It's an absolute scandal that they are getting away with this and the MSM are as culpable as the government . 

But they are still managing to fool the majority of the country. 

Sturgeon oot 

[Adam_the_legend]

1 hour ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

It's mad that they allowed these guys to go out and showcase worst case scenarios when they must have known it would get picked apart when the worst case scenario didn't happen. Just leads to more anti-science chat. 

completely mind boggling approach from Whitty and Vallance. It begs the question, if the “science” is so clear and justifies their conclusions then surely they could have presented said data rather than essentially an explanation of what exponential growth is. The 50,000 cases/200 deaths was immediately jumped on by most media outlets and was not based on any scientific method or data. Just a completely ridiculous approach from them. 

[Adam_the_legend]

40 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

The new measures appear to be working well.  

 

 

Surely the measures can’t be reflected in the data due to the delay from incubation period ie these case numbers would have been the same regardless of any external measures?

[N Lincs Jambo]

16 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

It's an absolute scandal that they are getting away with this and the MSM are as culpable as the government . 

But they are still managing to fool the majority of the country. 

I completely agree. I’m glad to see the “science” being put forward by Hancock and his cronies getting increasingly questioned but the MSM is still fawning over them and toeing the line. I saw yesterday that Andrew Neill is to leave the BBC. I’ve not always been his greatest fan but if he had interviewed Bill Gates in April instead of the nauseating Charlie Steyt, he would definitely have pulled Gates up when he referred to himself as a “health expert”. Sad when journalists who have a bit of integrity and aren’t afraid to ask the awkward questions are sidelined.