Coronavirus 2020


OECD document here contains some puzzling references to the import and export of Covid-19 related products in 2018

Archived link:


Weird as soon as I pasted the data table above, went back to run an imports query and the page refreshed suddenly all the columns with Covi-19 test kits, changed to “medical test kits” - no I didn’t get a screen grab!

I had looked at this earlier today and possibly saw this yesterday.

Perhaps there was a a database code assigning error, that erroneously acted retrospectively or someone screwed something up nefariously or not, but since it’s probably gone viral around the net, someone moved to change it for whatever reason - but that sure is weird, reminds me of the time a wiki entry changed as I was writing a post on another topic many moons ago, oh well… :icon_biggrin:

From the search query, there are two listings for Covid 19-Test kits, that no longer seem to return any results.

382200 – COVID-19 Test Kits

300215 – COVID-19 Test Kits

You may still be able to see this as per screen grab below:


It appears these codes no longer return anything other than “medical test kits” for 2017-2019



… but not exactly actually! The Thick Plottens :ninja:


Here we go you can see the wits page was archived on sept 5th, demonstrating the “covid-19 test kits” entires, since replaced with “medical test kits” entries. :whistle:


There is also a topic on which has screen grabs and similar or same information.


Within the category stated to refer to the import and export of Covid 19 related materials during 2018, the OECD document cites items that would not be necessarily used to combat Covif 19 specifically ie presumably PPE can be used to protect against many virus, not just Covid.

However , the reference to testing kits is puzzling. My understanding would have been that testing kits for Covid 19 were specific to that virus and were also only developed over the past few months.

Perhaps Im ignorant of the reality around testing and also around what has played out since March 2020?


Indeed, from you link this specific reference isn maybe clarifying:

While this data can provide a useful illustration of some of the issues and interdependencies, several caveats need to be noted.

  • While the WCO has provided guidance on the types of products that matter for the fight against COVID-19, the list is unlikely to be static. As new issues arise, new products might be added.3 Moreover, some products which may be critical intermediates for the production of these products are not captured (e.g. rubber for the production of rubber gloves). As such, others, including the World Bank Group and the World Trade Organisation, are developing more detailed and complementary lists.
  • Comparable international trade statistics often only cover more aggregate products (i.e. at the HS 6-digit level) than those directly relevant to COVID-19 (e.g. HS code 481890 covers a broad category of paper articles, of which only some are paper bed sheets on the COVID-19 list and similar aggregation issues arise for face masks (HS 630790), protective garments for medical use (HS 621010), and other products).
  • Since the data refers to trade before the COVID-19, the analysis does not capture what trade in these products looks like today. It also does not include products such as the COVID-19 tests (including HS 382200 and HS 300215) which were not produced prior to the crisis.

Fat finger or a bad decision to use historical codes?

Yet, the WTIS flipped back to “medical test kits”… perhaps this is really a bad choice to use historical codes, if so, how can the above caveat be reconciled, as it makes clear these kits going by ref no. 382200 & 300215 were not produced prior to the crisis.

Thus there is no data for prior - but then how then did they map to the historical entries producing a Covi-19 Test Kit entry (since flipped back to medical test kits in the description field) for the years 2017-2019, surely this points to a clumsy re-use of historical reference codes for novel items, which seems terribly dumb and means the above caveat is either correct, incorrect or a third unknown factor? :thinking:


The C-rane bar is always good for pint. Better than any dry pub anyways


The treatment of sports fans and participants is inexcusable…good (angry) article here:

As a piece of political slipperiness, the Government’s ability to be in charge of everything right now without being to blame for anything is almost admirable. The carry-on last week with the pubs and the keeping of receipts for 28 days was a classic of the genre. It was, said Stephen Donnelly, a measure aimed at a very small proportion of pubs who weren’t playing by the rules and anyway, the rules wouldn’t be in place for very much longer so it soon won’t apply.

So there you have it. A country in the grip of a once-in-a-century health crisis, one already battening down the hatches for the imminent economic tornado and one which, at best, is crossing its fingers for the mental health implications of both combined, that country’s government is using its time to legislate for something that it claims isn’t happening to any great extent, while emphasising that said legislation will soon be null and void in any case.

The Government can pull this sort of nonsense because they walk with a shield in front of them. The quiet, unfussy medical people who head up Nphet have taken a disproportionate amount of blame for the nuttiest of the measures. The €9 meal wheeze in pubs was strictly a Government invention but you can be sure that if you stopped people in the street and asked, Nphet would get a significant portion of the blame.


It is a cowardly way to lead.

On the money, and for Martin it is true to form.


Game changer IMO, double blind trial reduced ICU admission likelihood from 50% to 2%. Only criticism is sample size N=76 but P<0.001 Start from 15 minutes in if you don’t have the time.

He’s very critical of the WHO not instigating wider trials before now, earlier on in the video.


I actually think I saw Tom Humphries on a bike recently. I wonder what he does with himself. At home watching Cuties on Netflix I imagine.


Some thing that might be relevant


How a maths mistake caused global lockdown…make of it what you will…


He’s at it again…stalking the media like the Grim Reaper…

Professor McConkey warned that we are "heading slowly, very slowly, but steadily and progressively into another epidemic in our midst that will lead to ICU [numbers] and deaths overwhelming the health service".

Lest we forget - the same Professor McConkey was making similar dire predictions last March:

Prof McConkey, the head of the department of international health and tropical medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland told RTÉ’s This Week programme on Sunday that coronavirus “could be like the Spanish flu, the Irish Civil War and the 1929 stock market crash all at once”.

He predicted that in the worst case scenario 80 per cent of the population or four million people in the Republic could get the disease with a death rate of between 2 and 3 per cent (80,000 to 120,000).


Here is what could possibly be the original publication

The key paragraph states.

If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2


John McAfee @officialmcafee

Spanish police attempt to arrest a woman not wearing a mask. Bystanders pull the woman away from the police and chase the police away, while chanting “Liberty!” Expect more of this, around the world, in the days to come.

Video at src:


So…they quote three “experts” in this article, two of whom are not against the idea of reopening pubs. Guess which one they decide to lead with in the headline and opening paragraph?

Prof Paul Moynagh, an immunologist at NUI Maynooth said that whatever decisions are taken about lifting or imposing restrictions, they should be “driven by the data”. This would look at the number of outbreaks linked to particular settings, and be based on an assumption that some risk is always involved.

“I haven’t seen any data to suggest the pubs that have been serving food were major sources of outbreaks,” he said.

While suggesting early summer, when levels of transmission were low and schools were closed, might have been the right time to re-open pubs, he asked: “When is there ever going to be a right time? We can’t let the virus dictate our lives forever, so we’re going to have to learn to live with it.”

Prof Sam McConkey said the idea was fine if implemented under strict rules and in a cooperative and physically distanced way.


This study desserved more press. It’s a blinded randomised prospective study. The numbers were small but the findings were striking.
Vit D is cheap and relatively harmeless.


Id agree
Another article on Bradykinin and Covid with some suggested treatment for control trials