Coronavirus

[Ducky]

She is, but she has a kink for wearing masks, so that's ye gents shit out of luck.

If a woman tells you that the way you turn her on is by wearing a mask, the problem probably isn't the mask.

Do you get a vanilla McFlurry to go with that vanilla sex life?

[mickO)))]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/men-who-wear-a-face-mask-are-sexier-according-to-us-women-301115555.html

[Kurt Cocaine]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/men-who-wear-a-face-mask-are-sexier-according-to-us-women-301115555.html

Now that's proper-ganda.... 

[astfgyl]

Be very interesting to know how many were sick vs how many were tested positive by PCR. Shame that was left out of a bullshit article that says we should be afraid of the air around us. With all of the research done in the world on common cold viruses such as coronavirus and rhinovirus, it is truly fucking amazing that this bollix is only coming out now when the idea of wearing masks needs propping up. Is it not to be fully expected that if a load of people are breathing in the same air as someone carrying any virus that there would be traces of it there to conveniently amplify through PCR to validate the research?

I am really genuinely surprised that you, as learned and critical as you seem to be, haven't seen this for what it is yet.

Well, as possibly the only person in this discussion who has ever performed a PCR and studied how they work and their limits, maybe you should turn that surprise back around. For all the poo-pooing of over-sensitivity, I know of plenty of cases where people were co-habiting and co-habitants tested negative; in fact, if you read the article neutrally, instead of employing what you have begun in bad faith to refer to as some kind of poetic employment of hyperbole to say that it enjoins us to be afraid to breathe the air, you would have read this: "an infected person had a 17.2% chance of spreading the virus to a family member who lived with them, but just a 2.6% chance of giving it to someone outside the home." That figure will be based on PCR testing. Going by your inflationary logic, an infected person should have a much, much higher chance of, let's say, making a family member test positive for PCR. But no, it's a sober 17.2%, much higher than the level outside the home, but still nothing that would indicate widespread or problematic inflation of incidence via PCR over-sensitivity.

So, in that choir case, it looks like what we're dealing with is what they say we're dealing with, rather than whatever it is that you imagine it must have been, such as single virus molecules alighting in 52 people's nostrils and staying there, without infecting them, for the few days it would have taken until they were tested.

I do see this for what it is; an extremely complex and delicate situation that is being made worse by the media, by politicians' inability to admit to having been wrong and thus allow themselves to rapidly change policy if need be, by the general public's constant avidity to blame someone - preferably an authority figure, real or imagined - for everything that goes wrong in life, and also - perhaps above ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE (irony incoming) - by hyperbole on both sides.

You might find it hard to believe, and especially in light of my public floggings suggestion a few posts ago but my issue isn't really and truly about blaming anyone. There are too many factors at work to paint it as a master plan or anything along those lines. Everyone and anyone wants to get their piece of the action around this whole thing and it has been hyped so so much from the very beginning coming out of China last December (and it is actually highly debatable if it indeed came out of there or was simply discovered there, given that it has been found in Brazilian sewage samples from earlier) that it is wholly understandable that people would be worried or anxious or afraid of it.

My issue is that the evidence does not support the fear in any way and now we are in a situation where everyone is still afraid and fear makes people act irrationally. The PCR thing is not about them being inaccurate or constantly throwing up false positives. The test doesn't care, it isn't sentient. The issue is that a positive result from it is seen as proof that someone is infectious when in fact it doesn't say that at all. But the fact it doesn't say that at all has not stopped that positive result becoming the definition of a case. As someone who has decent knowledge of these tests, what do you think of the story of the U.S. labs running it for 40 cycles to generate a positive result, and why do you think they would do that? It's a bit obvious isn't it, it's not to do anything beyond keeping themselves in the money by doing more testing and keeping the whole thing going.

What also do you think of the story that these tests will pick up other coronavirus variants, such as the one found to cause some common colds, and how much do you think that distorts the data? That is only the testing for starters, but unfortunately the whole response is centred around the level of positive tests and not the level of sick people involved. The response to this was supposed to be about keeping hospital numbers down, and it happened; they weren't overrun.

So now why this persistence with the response and a plan to keep us all under threat of restrictions for the next year or so, when the numbers in the real world never actually matched up to the flawed mathematical modelling, which assumed that nobody had any immunity to the virus when it turns out that the larger percentage do actually have an inbuilt immune response due to the similarity between this coronavirus and previously discovered ones. Now no one will actually come out and say "fuck it, it was over hyped, lets crack on with living again". No it must be the long plan, and of course because all the data in the world shows that it is seasonal as any normal cold virus, and will inevitably be present in some folks who die this winter during season, the government can persist with the idea that it is all of our faults for going on living our lives rather than say it wasn't what it at first seemed.

We then have the likes of the WHO announcing that things can never be the same again no matter what. Why? Why can't things be as they were? No reason at all because when the dust settles on this in a few months with or without a vaccine, people will slowly realise that it was never deserving of the response it received. A lot of people will be unhappy and broke and still on the hospital waiting list, but as long as those numbers are kept high (by testing) there is still a chance of the governments blaming everyone rather than having it turned around on them. It is not right to be putting people in fear like this when the evidence is just not there to back it up.

So there is the hyperbole-free version of what I see going on in front of me while science continues to try to convince us to be afraid of the air we breathe. What do you make of that?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Prepare to have your mind-blown, because none of your anti-for-the-sake-of-being-anti sources will tell you this, but false negatives are a bigger issue with clinical (rather than laboratory setting) PCR testing than false positives. There are some great YouTube series about molecular biology, lecture portions from MIT, that will tell you all about how PCR works, which might be of more long-term beneficial use to you than learning about them from people with an enormous agenda.

[astfgyl]

Prepare to have your mind-blown, because none of your anti-for-the-sake-of-being-anti sources will tell you this, but false negatives are a bigger issue with clinical (rather than laboratory setting) PCR testing than false positives. There are some great YouTube series about molecular biology, lecture portions from MIT, that will tell you all about how PCR works, which might be of more long-term beneficial use to you than learning about them from people with an enormous agenda.

The PCR thing is not about them being inaccurate or constantly throwing up false positives. The test doesn't care, it isn't sentient. The issue is that a positive result from it is seen as proof that someone is infectious when in fact it doesn't say that at all.

You skirted around that one a bit there. My source on that one was the New York Times for starters, who are hardly anti for the sake of being anti.

What also do you think of the story that these tests will pick up other coronavirus variants, such as the one found to cause some common colds, and how much do you think that distorts the data?

Could you give your own opinion on that one rather than directing me to the Youtube lectures? Note I said story, not fact. I am indeed skeptical enough not to buy into any old shite I read, but also not blind to the massive discrepancy between the predictions and the reality. I don't get everything from the anti side, and also read the pro stories. I also try make a habit of getting my info from reputable sources in the public domain rather than anything off FB or Twitter or the likes, although I admit nobody is infallible.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Strictly speaking, PCR "false positives" are highly unlikely to occur; in scientific terms, detecting a strand of dead SARS-CoV2 after 40 or even 60 cycles is not a "false positive", it's a true positive. The question - as I think you're saying yourself, but just to clarify - is about whether, clinically, the tested person is actually infected or not. Similarly, PCR "false negatives" are rare, but in clinical settings they can happen a lot, because the sample taken may not contain any virus, for a number of reasons. So, on an individual level, both things can happen. But on a population, which is to say an epidemiological, level, widespread PCR testing is still going to give a very accurate idea of how much of the virus is actively in circulation...which is what I said a couple of pages back. A pandemic is, above all, a population phenomenon, and it needs to be addressed as such first and foremost. Which is not to say that the individual level is not regarded at all, it has to be, but it isn't the most pertinent level of analysis; that's population. The distinction is really important to grasp.

Based on how RT-PCR works, I don't think they will be picking up common cold viruses as coronaviruses. If such a result occurs, it will more likely be down to human error, so I don't think such an eventuality could be distorting the data in any meaningful way. PCR is an unbelievably powerful tool in genetics precisely because that kind of thing is extremely unlikely to happen. And, in passing, the number of cycles would have zero incidence on that aspect.

[Trev]

...

[Trev]

...

[Kurt Cocaine]

I see the 6 o'clock scaremongering session has just been on. 
Great way to start the weekend. 

[Kurt Cocaine]

I'm no fan of Leo V but this is bollix. Spoiled little bitch by the looks of her.....

https://mobile.twitter.com/NoelRock/status/1306967632516714497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1306967632516714497%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fleo-varadkar-drink-thrown-5208603-Sep2020%2F

[astfgyl]

Strictly speaking, PCR "false positives" are highly unlikely to occur; in scientific terms, detecting a strand of dead SARS-CoV2 after 40 or even 60 cycles is not a "false positive", it's a true positive. The question - as I think you're saying yourself, but just to clarify - is about whether, clinically, the tested person is actually infected or not. Similarly, PCR "false negatives" are rare, but in clinical settings they can happen a lot, because the sample taken may not contain any virus, for a number of reasons. So, on an individual level, both things can happen. But on a population, which is to say an epidemiological, level, widespread PCR testing is still going to give a very accurate idea of how much of the virus is actively in circulation...which is what I said a couple of pages back. A pandemic is, above all, a population phenomenon, and it needs to be addressed as such first and foremost. Which is not to say that the individual level is not regarded at all, it has to be, but it isn't the most pertinent level of analysis; that's population. The distinction is really important to grasp.

Based on how RT-PCR works, I don't think they will be picking up common cold viruses as coronaviruses. If such a result occurs, it will more likely be down to human error, so I don't think such an eventuality could be distorting the data in any meaningful way. PCR is an unbelievably powerful tool in genetics precisely because that kind of thing is extremely unlikely to happen. And, in passing, the number of cycles would have zero incidence on that aspect.

Ok that explains it pretty well. Thanks for that. I guess false positives is indeed the wrong terminology then, it's just more to do with the issue of how the overall results are acted upon. I had seen a lot of info regarding SARS-CoV-2 being genetically similar to other coronavirus variants to the extent it would likely fool the test, but seemingly it is only the antibody test then that is non-specific.

[astfgyl]

I'm no fan of Leo V but this is bollix. Spoiled little bitch by the looks of her.....

https://mobile.twitter.com/NoelRock/status/1306967632516714497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1306967632516714497%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fleo-varadkar-drink-thrown-5208603-Sep2020%2F

That is indeed not the way to get the point across.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Strictly speaking, PCR "false positives" are highly unlikely to occur; in scientific terms, detecting a strand of dead SARS-CoV2 after 40 or even 60 cycles is not a "false positive", it's a true positive. The question - as I think you're saying yourself, but just to clarify - is about whether, clinically, the tested person is actually infected or not. Similarly, PCR "false negatives" are rare, but in clinical settings they can happen a lot, because the sample taken may not contain any virus, for a number of reasons. So, on an individual level, both things can happen. But on a population, which is to say an epidemiological, level, widespread PCR testing is still going to give a very accurate idea of how much of the virus is actively in circulation...which is what I said a couple of pages back. A pandemic is, above all, a population phenomenon, and it needs to be addressed as such first and foremost. Which is not to say that the individual level is not regarded at all, it has to be, but it isn't the most pertinent level of analysis; that's population. The distinction is really important to grasp.

Based on how RT-PCR works, I don't think they will be picking up common cold viruses as coronaviruses. If such a result occurs, it will more likely be down to human error, so I don't think such an eventuality could be distorting the data in any meaningful way. PCR is an unbelievably powerful tool in genetics precisely because that kind of thing is extremely unlikely to happen. And, in passing, the number of cycles would have zero incidence on that aspect.

Ok that explains it pretty well. Thanks for that. I guess false positives is indeed the wrong terminology then, it's just more to do with the issue of how the overall results are acted upon. I had seen a lot of info regarding SARS-CoV-2 being genetically similar to other coronavirus variants to the extent it would likely fool the test, but seemingly it is only the antibody test then that is non-specific.

I did make a mistake here though:
"Based on how RT-PCR works, I don't think they will be picking up common cold viruses as coronaviruses."
I should have said:
"Based on how RT-PCR works, I don't think they will be picking up common cold viruses as SARS-CoV-2."
Some common cold viruses are coronaviruses, but PCR still wouldn't get distinct ones mixed up. The serology test could make such a "mix up" though, on antibodies, which is bad and good news; bad news because it makes that method of testing a less reliable epidemiological/epidemic fighting tool than we might like it to be; good news because it goes a little way to explaining why some people seem to have higher resistance to COVID, as they developed antibodies to fight other coronaviruses (perhaps a common cold, for instance) which happen to have some effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 as well.

[astfgyl]

Yeah I copped the little slip there, but I got what you meant. The level of immune response seemingly gathered from previous coronaviruses is indeed excellent news, and here's hoping that most people will turn out to have it.

It is a real minefield these days picking through sources trying to get to the actual info, and it's a fault of mine that the scaremongering type of stuff gets my back up so much. In spite of what a lot of my posts look like, I'm a compassionate person in reality and seeing everyone terrified all the time and turning against each other when the evidence doesn't really support doing that gets to me a lot. I don't want to take away from the effect it has on those who get a bad dose from it either, but the way the media and government are handling this is all wrong and causing more problems than it is solving.

Like I don't agree with Dublin being moved to level 3 at all even though I'm not going to be there any time soon, and I think that the level of hospitalisations does not support this move at all, in spite of the rise in cases. This brings us back around to how the results of the testing is being applied, and it is not being done rationally. Self isolating for sick people is fair enough, but this whole idea of locking down things again is not the way. Can nobody look at Sweden, admit that is the right approach, and go at it like that?

I've just seen on RTE's nightly dose of fear that Ireland has the lowest number of ICU beds per capita in Europe. Why was that not increased dramatically in the six months since this began here? It's shit like that that makes me want to bang my head against the wall as well.