More accurately, TAXPAYER is underwriting vaccine risks. But we’ve been here before, in a way - privatise profit, socialise liability. THEY fill their boots, WE keep coughing up.
Spain will set up a registry of people who refuse to be vaccinated against the new coronavirus and share it with other European Union member states, although it will not be made public, Health Minister Salvador Illa said Monday.
“What will be done is a registry, which will be shared with our European partners… of those people who have been offered it and have simply rejected it,” he said.
“It is not a document which will be made public and it will be done with the utmost respect for data protection,” he added, noting that employers or members of the general public would not have access to it.
The proportion of Spaniards unwilling to take a Covid-19 vaccine has plunged to 28 percent in December from 47 percent last month, according to a poll published last month.
So you have a country (you have many countries, you fly variations of the same kite from each), you got the whole social security system database, you lash in a new column, you set everyone to default “N”, overnight everyone is in the bad books, then you make contingent the social contract & transactional events between state and citizen on the citizen being genetically modified or not.
Oh, on the right to Vote thingy, yea I know, it’s a bit messy but, I was wondering, will we need to be genetically modified humans to exert our right to Vote? Gosh I hope not or at least, I hope there is at least some clarity on the mater. Clarity is important.
'Course, I dare say you won’t need it to qualify to pay tax. I have this hunch, there are some technical and legal issues there that are so complex, they’re jsut well, totally insurmountable or the timelines are way too onerous to make practical, it simply won’t be in the short, mid to long term for most governments to figure it out how to dovetail it all at once, though Universal Basic Income might be the really crazy cool tangent that works around this, but oh, yea, you’ll probably need to genetically modify a few brain cells. So maybe not. Ho hum…
Did I miss anything?
It’s also kind of interesting the various administrative gaslighting experiments via legal-reality that are occurring in present times - take for example the moves in the US (California) to de-crimilnalise people who purposefully infect others with HIV/AIDS, but take your mask off and show your face in public and you’re the Black Death incarnate burn in Hell you monster and here is your criminal record, begone from our world you lepar!
I see the numbers have since changed. I spotted this notice at the top today, but did not see it when I looked last time, could have been there, it’s easily scrolled by.
User Notice: there may be some changes to data and related service publication frequency on this site during the period 25th December 2020 to 3rd January 2021 inclusive. Data will not be published on 25th and 26th December however testing and other data collection activities will continue.
But can we trust these polls? Seems to me that their main purpose is to sway and manipulate public opinion. Joe Normie reasons that if XX% think the vaccine is safe then that’s good enough for me.
On the other hand
Just four in 10 people in France want to have a vaccination against Covid-19, a poll showed Tuesday, as concern also grows over the slow star to the country’s immunisation campaign.
According to the poll by Ipsos Global Advisor in partnership with the World Economic Forum, just 40 percent of French want to take the vaccine.
This puts it behind even other laggards like Russia on 43 percent and South Africa on 53 percent, let alone those countries where eagerness to take the vaccine is high such as China on 80 percent and Britain on 77 percent.
Sexual expression, particularly gay sexual expression, is now sacred in the West. You can’t be blaspheming about it by encouraging morality. In fact morality must be inverted.
@live_wire You might like this thread here:
On Nov 27th a group of concerned life scientists, all well recognised in their specialist fields, published a critical review of the paper that led to the mass adoption of PCR testing as a diagnostic tool for covid 19. Much of it is rather technical so I’ve listed five items that do not require any great knowledge of molecular biology to understand.
The paper was written by two lead authors, Christian Drosten and Victor Corman, and is now generally referred to as the Corman-Drosten report. It was submitted to the Eurosurveillance journal on the 21st Jan and published on the 23rd without any apparent effort at peer review. It also transpires that Drosten is an editor of the Journal, which has refused to disclose any details of its peer review process. What is more alarming is that the WHO had already adopted the report as its basis for covid 19 testing on the 13th Jan, 10 days before it was available for consideration by the scientific community as a whole.
The genetic sequencing relied upon to design the test was a theoretical model supplied by a Chinese lab and not the actual virus. This coding has yet to be checked to see if it actually corresponds with the real thing. In other words it was a guess and nobody knows if it is right or not.
The genes relied on to identify the covid virus are only loosely specified and their position is not accurately tied down. This can lead to non covid genes being recognised as the real thing and give a false positive. Also, two matches of gene sequencing are relied upon instead of at least three. The concerned scientists clearly state that - This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance . Just to add to it all, one of the two genes used, the E gene, is most likely not specific to covid 19 but may be found in many other SARS type virus originating in Asia.
Amplification cycles of the genetic material should not exceed 25 - 30 cycles, they note that 35 cycles renders the test ‘completely unreliable’. One of the comments shown below the review suggests that in the Netherlands 40 cycles or more were commonly used in the testing protocol, heavily influencing the response by the authorities.
5.The design errors of the Cormon-Drosten protocol are so large that it is unlikely that specific amplification of the covid genetic material is likely to occur. That is to say that the test will amplify other sequences which may well mask the covid markers.
Here is the linked report:
Towards the end of the report…
9. Authors as the editors
A final point is one of major concern. It turns out that two authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, are also members of the editorial board of this journal . Hence there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed. It has the appearance that the rapid publication was possible simply because the authors were also part of the editorial board at Eurosurveillance. This practice is categorized as compromising scientific integrity.
SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER
The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:
There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.
A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted ; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there  and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.
The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.
Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.
Leaving aside the controversy that the PCR creates an entirely bogus cases volume as a rule.
Here is something to consider when listening to reporting in the media.
Yesterday, Hospital admissions with, were 60 but on the flip side, discharges with, were 27, so the net effect was a rise of only 33 to the care chain.
It is not uncommon to have negative days occur regularly throughout this whole event, when the hospital care chain appears to reduce the net burden of C19 cases because so many more are discharged with, than admitted with, on the given day.
If we look at the last 6 days, counting from Dec 30th, we see 199 admissions with, but also a total discharge of 80 with, so the net burden in that 6 day period is just 119.
However, the total hospital figure today is reported at 454, it is not clear how that figures come about, i.e. what it comprises of, it may be a mix of the admissions + discharges and then patients who are tested while in hospital system, that suddenly bing positive and thus join the list - If anyone knows the relationship of that number to the other numbers, or the exact inputs that create it, please shine a light!
Next are the tests.
If you look at the tests numbers, the hospitals are reporting a very even level of testing. So even, it is very predictable and not prone to massive variance for most of this event.
However, if you pay attention, the tests being sent to “labs”, these figures are far less predictable and prone to massive upswings and periods of sudden major drops, and also periods of virtual inactivity, crazy peaks and troughs, at a rate and pattern that seems to have no bearing or relation to the hospital testing numbers while also seeming to defy any kind of seasonal, logistical or otherwise patterns (open to suggestion here).
This indicates that maybe hospitals have a very fixed and hard-to-scale testing capacity, and so rely on the “labs”
Yet interestingly enough, at the beginning of this event, most of the test results were coming from the labs in terms of sudden massive volume that appear to have generated most of the cases in Mar-May - it also appears the hospitals did not find their stride until mid-May in terms of ability to have capacity to run regular and stable testing, and this as indicated gently increased and has formed a very predictable signature.
What I can not ascertain is, where is the massive at times excess demand coming from for the Lab tests?
According to the dashboard of death, over 2.3 million tests have occurred in Ireland.
If the numbers are correct, the population of an average Dublin orbital town is being processed in a day and sometimes per day for 6/7 many days running, over 100K in a week.
What is this excess testing demand made up of, perhaps it is GP, HSE clinic, excess Hospital requirements, is there anywhere else?
How is it that it sometimes doubles next day and can virtually halve as much again not long after.
If anyone can shine a light on that it would also be welcome. I thankfully can count on one hand how many I know who for sure got a test.
The only person I know who died of Covid got it in hospital.
When I see the word “exponential” being bandied about in the media and by the health minister, in relation to todays decision to go back up to Terror Level 5 (I thought we were already at Terror Level 5, must have been Terror Level 5-Lite), I picture people being beaten back with Hockey Sticks and Climate-gates being erected to keep them off the land.
The new MRSA?
I also noted something that appeared to be new or that I did not notice it before, on the dashboard of death, that the total death toll figure, now carried a little caveat:
includes probable and possible now
So maybe some of these are C19 deaths, but maybe many are not, or where not and perhaps like your unfortunate tale, your friend had an existing pre-morbidity and then along cam a swab and sat down beside them, and frightened their poor soul away!
It’s not. It’s lies, all lies.
No Covid killed them. In that case “pre existing conditions” was a smokescreen. It was someone who would be hospitalized once or twice a year with a condition and was being sheltered at home. Got Covid in hospital and died. Covid and hospitalization killed them.
The technical end of it being, a patient is admitted without, not counted but then counted later with hospital acquired malady - the 1/6 picked up in hospital number means of the cases used to justify continued measures, with yesterday being reported as highest, approx. 250 were generated by the hospital system itself in one day.
I’m wondering what the bill for all the tests is and when will it fall due
Your freedom, pay as you don’t go.
Hospital Admission for December up to the 30th
|December||Confirmed Case In Hosp.||New Admission||Discharged|