Coronavirus

[astfgyl]

Immunity passports for what exactly?

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2021/03/29/dozens-in-central-florida-contract-covid-19-after-being-fully-vaccinated

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Fuckin ridiculous.

https://youtu.be/6POsmjrbjI0

I concur, this guy's arguments are fuckin ridiculous.

97% false positive rate? I'm pretty sure this guy doesn't know what a false positive rate actually is. Here's an in context summary from one of the scientists who has been most vocal since last year about giving false positive rate the attention it deserves:
https://www.icd10monitor.com/false-positives-in-pcr-tests-for-covid-19

He makes a strong argument, which goes in your favour, without resorting to garbage numberwang.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Immunity passports for what exactly?

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2021/03/29/dozens-in-central-florida-contract-covid-19-after-being-fully-vaccinated

"I don't think the public is aware that it doesn't mean you're not getting the virus, and it doesn't mean you're not getting sick. There is still a chance," Rewerts said.

Yes, a 5% chance. 5% out of millions is...? The mumps vaccine, with two doses, is about 88% effective. It takes four doses for the polio vaccine to achieve ~99% efficacy. Welcome to the world of vaccines.

Same type of flawed maths as is being applied to the false positive rate question, but now just working in the opposite direction.

[astfgyl]

Immunity passports for what exactly?

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2021/03/29/dozens-in-central-florida-contract-covid-19-after-being-fully-vaccinated

"I don't think the public is aware that it doesn't mean you're not getting the virus, and it doesn't mean you're not getting sick. There is still a chance," Rewerts said.

Yes, a 5% chance. 5% out of millions is...? The mumps vaccine, with two doses, is about 88% effective. It takes four doses for the polio vaccine to achieve ~99% efficacy. Welcome to the world of vaccines.

Same type of flawed maths as is being applied to the false positive rate question, but now just working in the opposite direction.

So, immunity passports for what again? And how many of the vaccinated do you think have been exposed to sars covi 2? These positive results are the only ones we can consider exposed to the virus, because how do we know those that don't catch it were ever exposed, post-vaccination? How many do we know were definitely never exposed and how can we tell that the supposed immunity wasn't naturally acquired over the course of the last year when as far as we were led to believe, asymptomatic cases were a massive part of it all? How many were tested for evidence of prior infection before vaccination? So many questions, so many absolutely fucking bullshit answers and all designed to say the thing works rather than any unbiased assessment of the actual results. I wonder why $$$$?

Dunno about the FPR maths, but here is a bit of an exercise.

If one does 20,000 tests a day with an FPR of between 1% and 3%, what is the likely number of false positives picked up during the 20,000 tests? Let's say the tests are done now, when the prevalence is low in the community for the nearly 3% and not during season, when it will be closer to 1%. (Source for FPR is Cillian De Gascun, NPHET menber and head of National Virus Reference Lab). Let's also take it that the overall positivity rate is 5% to keep it easy and we can say there have been 600 cases announced before we go figure. How accurate of a picture is being painted by the daily announcements of case numbers?

Is that the sort of thing you mean by flawed maths, and how would you go about correcting it?

My 5 year old son did his own version of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel and it was more accurate a representation of the real picture than the absolute horseshit we get shovelled into us every evening.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Dunno about the FPR maths, but here is a bit of an exercise.

If one does 20,000 tests a day with an FPR of between 1% and 3%, what is the likely number of false positives picked up during the 20,000 tests? Let's say the tests are done now, when the prevalence is low in the community for the nearly 3% and not during season, when it will be closer to 1%. (Source for FPR is Cillian De Gascun, NPHET menber and head of National Virus Reference Lab). Let's also take it that the overall positivity rate is 5% to keep it easy and we can say there have been 600 cases announced before we go figure. How accurate of a picture is being painted by the daily announcements of case numbers?

Is that the sort of thing you mean by flawed maths, and how would you go about correcting it?

The link I posted goes step-by-step through an example with 0.5% FPR, with the proper equations to use given, so I'm not sure what extra point you're trying to make here. What I was saying about the video you posted, is that clearly that guy is an authority on nothing, because the notion of a 97% FPR is both ridiculous and also unnecessarily exaggerated to begin severe critique of COVID response. Again, there are plenty of strong arguments to be made against what is happening, but there is also a bombardment of absolute crap, and very little evidence of people being able to separate wheat from chaff.

So, immunity passports for what again? And how many of the vaccinated do you think have been exposed to sars cov2? These positive results are the only ones we can consider exposed to the virus, because how do we know those that don't catch it were ever exposed, post-vaccination? How many do we know were definitely never exposed and how can we tell that the supposed immunity wasn't naturally acquired over the course of the last year when as far as we were led to believe, asymptomatic cases were a massive part of it all?

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but here's something that lays out the numbers. Now bear in mind that in Florida over three million people have received both doses:

If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

[astfgyl]

What's a case again?

Edit: Those figures are actually meaningless because unless we know how many individuals were actually exposed to the virus, we haven't a clue how effective anything is, so all we are doing is supposing. The data behind this is piss poor much like many other claims against it. The difference is that we are being subjected to pure propaganda about the effectiveness of the vaccine, when the figures don't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. It is the same with the testing and the same with the masking and will be the same with the immunity passports that don't even mean you are immune. Pure shite.

Did you do the FPR maths up there? Why are they assuming 0.5% when the head of the NVR lab says it is 1 - 3% depending on prevalence? The 97% FPR assumption comes from the fact that as so many tests are done, the final tally of positives each day falls within the possibility of every single one being false. God knows where the exact figure of 97% comes from but it is probably along those lines. If 3% of positives are false and we have a positivity rate of say 3% from all tests, what does that actually tell us? Nothing. Nothing at all.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

ICU COVID occupation in Paris central is the highest it's been since last May, overall COVID hospitalizations same. Right now, there are more people with COVID lying in ICU in Paris than there were total beds in ICU a year ago.

They're all definitely cases anyway.

[astfgyl]

ICU COVID occupation in Paris central is the highest it's been since last May, overall COVID hospitalizations same. Right now, there are more people with COVID lying in ICU in Paris than there were total beds in ICU a year ago.

They're all definitely cases anyway.

How were they diagnosed?

[spiritcrusher]

Did you do the FPR maths up there? Why are they assuming 0.5% when the head of the NVR lab says it is 1 - 3% depending on prevalence? The 97% FPR assumption comes from the fact that as so many tests are done, the final tally of positives each day falls within the possibility of every single one being false. God knows where the exact figure of 97% comes from but it is probably along those lines. If 3% of positives are false and we have a positivity rate of say 3% from all tests, what does that actually tell us? Nothing. Nothing at all.

While I haven't followed all the nonsense here I do want to find out more about your reasoning in the last sentence. A positivity rate of 3% with a false positive rate of 3% actually does give loads of information if you put it into actual numbers.
Say 10000 people were tested and we get 3% positive - that's 300 positives. A false positive rate of 3% then means that 9 out those 300 people tested positive that shouldn't have. This is 0.09% of the initial 10,000 sample, or in layman's terms - fuck all.
So, I think correctly identifying the 293 people who were positive is in fact telling us something.
Unless I'm totally wrong on why you think the maths doesn't add up. And, to be clear, I'm talking here purely in terms of the figures and calculations, not the larger conspiracy at hand.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Astfgyl; the link I gave contained an illustration of how FPR translates into real world terms. It used convenient numbers to make it easy to follow, and it used a low FPR to show how this could nevertheless translate into large numbers of incorrect diagnosis (hence, the link went generally in your sense). The reason I posted it was to show you the difference between some random EU representative who doesn't understand the numbers he's using (neither at the time of using them or later on while compiling his own greatest hits video) and someone who does understand. There are lots of decent arguments that go in the general direction of how you interpret what's going on, but there has been zero discernment in this thread between that and utter nonsense.

[astfgyl]

Astfgyl; the link I gave contained an illustration of how FPR translates into real world terms. It used convenient numbers to make it easy to follow, and it used a low FPR to show how this could nevertheless translate into large numbers of incorrect diagnosis (hence, the link went generally in your sense). The reason I posted it was to show you the difference between some random EU representative who doesn't understand the numbers he's using (neither at the time of using them or later on while compiling his own greatest hits video) and someone who does understand. There are lots of decent arguments that go in the general direction of how you interpret what's going on, but there has been zero discernment in this thread between that and utter nonsense.

Ah yer man in video. Fair enough. I thought it was nice for an MEP to actually ask a few questions for once, it's been a while. Hard to argue with his points around who profits and benefits from all of this.

As for the 3% thing, I think I just worded that badly. I don't know where they pull the 97% FPR from was what I meant. I am very skeptical about it all but even I don't think it's anything like that. Of course there are many other finer points to argue over, such as asymptomatic "cases" counting and so forth, but I have done enough research into PCR to understand it's problem isn't inaccuracy. Whatever it is supposed to find, it finds. Sometimes too well (fragments etc), but at least there won't be false negatives coming from it if that was the worry. I've gotten very good at sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to info though and very careful with the sources these days after going wrong a few times. There is enough official data out there to turn this on its' head already so I try stick to that stuff where possible.

It makes sense though that the FPR would rise at a time where there is low prevalence. Less chance when testing people with symptoms but the test anyone at all approach would pull up a fair few duds. Assays can fail, too, which doesn't seem to have been considered for the most part in the moneymaking orgy. Not many people retested in the absence of clinical symptoms. Florida publishes the CT values, which is something we could be doing here and as far as I know the magic 40 CT is still in play in Ireland, despite HIQA and the WHO both recommending against it.

The only reasons that this thing isn't over yet is because of money and social control (which probably leads to more money at the end of the day).

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

New hydroxychloroquine clinical trial meta-analysis. Even Ioannidis is in on this one.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

"Stop, stop...it's already dead!"

[astfgyl]

If the same scientific rigour was applied to the vaccine results, it would be even more dead. Still, this is about hcq and the results leave little room for doubt. Saying that, I'll have to give it a proper read but initial impression is that it is most certainly dead.

Next up for the chop will be the ivm, wait and see.

It will simply have to be something more expensive and with no results either, but certainly more expensive at least. Funny how remdesivir doesn't perform but is authorised all the same and far less known about it than hcq or ivm.

Anyway it matters not a fuck because this thing is over in all but name. The silly actions of governments and the greed of pharma companies and vaccine backers continue unabated but other than all the silliness it's over.

Edit because it's not worth the bump but if something is so infectious that you can spread it by breathing or catch it just walking past people, why the swab behind the eyes or up the arse to test for it? Why not simply breathe on the swab and see if it's positive? And if the swab can't catch it, the chances are that no one else can either, given the frightening accuracy of pcr testing. The answer is because the arse would simply fall out of the whole scam if we applied logic to it and the profits would dry up.

[astfgyl]

https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1074247

Interesting side effects on this 2 year old in the US, as reported on VAERS. Because like it's really crucial that 2 year olds get the jabs to stop people dying in nursing homes.

Fairly minor effects, mind. Most likely coincidence like all the other reported effects. I'm sure the companies are confident enough in their products to cover any liabilities anyway... yeah

[Kurt Cocaine]

Youtube have censored Ivor Cummins' latest simple five minute video showing the key Ireland Mortality reality.

There were approximately 250 fewer deaths in Ireland in 2020 than there were in 2017 (flu year).

Make sure you subscribe to his bitchute channel: https://www.bitchute.com/video/rzec2ivd6MQ/