Archived link: https://archive.is/ZcozU
Will there be “antibody” certs, “I already had covid” certs, " I’m at risk of a severe allergic reaction so I’ll not be having the vaccine thanks" certs, “I’m 4 years old and can’t catch covid” certs ? Etc.
The symbolism this time round could not be any darker.
OW, that shiite is a new low, even for a conspiracy nut like you.
This site has gone to the dogs with this conspiracy crap.
FFS whats wrong with you, have you lost the capacity to think?, just read the shit on that article and try to rationally think, sentences like “The Irish Government’s goal is to destroy small businesses” - what!!!, really???, its batshit insane nonsense.
i clicked on a couple of ‘articles’
thats easily the most mental website i have ever visited.
Its not about government trying to close businesses. Its about government listening to analysts laying it out and trying on balance to do the right thing. Analysts are saying people are going to die in large numbers. The health service is going to be overwhelmed this is based on my estimate that we will have between 2189 to 3568 confirmed cases a day by Dec 30th and we’ll hit 5000 cases between 2nd and 8th January. This is without taking into account effects of opening up on 18th Dec. Read on further down to see what I’m basing this on.
It takes 5 days for an infected person to be symptomatic (maybe another day or 2 in denial telling everyone I don’t have bloody Covid) a further 2 days to get public test results back and HSE report figures each day from up to midnight the previous day. In other words if I’m initially infected today I likely don’t count in figures till 8 maybe even 10 days time.
So any lock down measures imposed today won’t have a major effect for 8 days as the confirmed case figures reported in 8 days time are for those infected today. Similarly any change in public behavior due to opening up won’t show up for 8 days so growth in case numbers doesn’t yet reflect further opening upon 18th Dec.
Since 14 Dec to yesterday confirmed cases per day have gone from 264 to 970. That’s a rate of increase of 17.66% per day. Even if we cherry pick a period as long as 4 days from 14 Dec the lowest average daily growth rate is 10.71% from 17 Dec to 21st Dec (484 grew to 727).
Lowest daily growth rate 10.71% of any period in the last 8 days if projected forward we will have 2189 confirmed cases by Dec 30 (This can’t be modified as people are infected already). It will rise to above 5000 confirmed cases a day by 8th January without change in public behaviour.
If the average growth rate of 17.66% for last 8 days is repeated we will have 3568 cases a day by 30 Dec (This can’t be modified as people are infected already). It will rise to 5000 confirmed cases a day by 2nd January.
The growth rate is likely to be in the middle of these figures if we hadn’t opened up on 18th Dec. BUT WE DID. As a result I think it will be close to the higher figures and we may even exceed them.
Remember when the nation nodded along to Eddie Hobbs
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
If you’re a Sinn Fein supporter stay away from their Sinn Fein section - It might ruin your Christmas.
Everything you just wrote is based on PCR tests that are simply meaningless. Go back to first principles, and you’ll see it’s all a lie.
Here’s Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer guy
“Everything you’ve been told, every scary fact, all hangs off the PCR test.”
We must smash the PCR lie.
We were never anywhere close to that in the first wave. But let’s hold you to that. In any case it’s hospitalisations and ICU beds that matter (1 in 6 catch Covid in hospital)
As others have pointed out those numbers you quote actually mean nothing. The case numbers are based on a test which should only used as a clinical diagnostic confirmation test not as a mass screening test. The mathematics of testing with this test is very simple. If there is a high probability that the test group have what you are looking for then most positive results are true. If the probability that the test group has what you are looking for is low then almost all positive results are false.
The crossover point for false positive is when the prevalence of what you are testing for become less than the total error rate for the test. In the case the error rate of RT/PCR its about 4%/5% in real world conditions. As the current prevalence of SARs CoV 2 is around 0.3% that means that around 95% of all positives are false positives. And due to the fact that RT/PCR is a molecular test that can only detect at most 50% of active SARs CoV 2 infections repeated testing of positives does not reduce the false positive rate very much as about half of the true positives are removed every test cycle as false negatives
Thats why the guy who invented the RT/PCR test said it was criminal malpractice to use his test for diagnostic screening purposes. He should know, he got a Nobel Prize for his efforts.
So all those numbers you quoted mean nothing. The actual progression seems to be that its a normal winter flu’ season and the old sick people who normally die of viral pneumonia now account for almost all active SARs CoV 2 moralities. Just displacement cause deaths. The other thing to bear in mind is that most of the COVID deaths are just people who died who got a SARS CoV 2 test and it was positive. Means little or nothing. If all these people had been tested for Herpes Simplex infection and the criteria used for recording COVID deaths were applied to that test then almost 70% of people who died in the last twelve months in Ireland were Herpes Simplex deaths.
Thats how meaningless the official statistics are. And the reporting of them by the media.
Well the article was silly because Ireland has no military to actually hold a coup, just a lightly armed gendarmerie. As for the rest of the articles on the site, mostly just all the stories you will never ever hear about in the Irish Times, RTE etc. Some are shrill, some are over the top, some are just silly. But on the bullshit to something substantive scale I’d rate the stories on the site as being substantially better than the I.T, RTE and pretty much all MSN nowadays. Where you see stories on a daily basic that are not just untrue or lies and it takes less than 30 seconds of searching online to find the primary sources that show the published stories to be untrue or gross misrepresentations.
Thats the world we live in I’m afraid. Where often wacky online sites often have more veracity and substance on some subjects than the MSM. So places like ZeroHedge, 90% dross, 9% interesting, 1% pure gold. The New York Times, 90% dross, 9.9% outright fabrication and lies, 0.1% substantive reporting.
We never tested anything like enough during the first wave. Even with out of date tests sent back from lab in Germany boosting numbers we only had a 7 day average peak of 955 cases on April 16 according to Worldometers figures. On April 23 we had 43 deaths a day and April 24th 68 (7 day average) deaths (the 68 figure is too high and includes some backdated deaths added the 43 is too low as some of these were updated later). I’ll give a best guess as deaths peaked at about 50 a day back in April.
In recent times the peak 7 day death rate was 20th November at 7 a day.
I don’t think its a stretch to say if we had the same level of testing in April as we had in October the peak rate in April was likely to be 2.5 times the peak 7 day average rate on October 21st of 1176. This would have given a peak of just under 3000 cases a day in April at October testing levels.
Yes its higher than the April peak and I dunno if hospitals will cope with this given its winter.
Incidentally I stated 2 models in that post the worst case one is 5000 cases by 2nd January but it may take a further 6 days
Sounds like March wants another shot at the prize, third time lucky I guess and people willing.
This is critical.
I think we have made progress in the management of this disease,
Every symptomatic covid patient should be taking vit D zinc melatonin and low dose aspirin. Each of these has been shown to be of benefit and are cheap and relatively innocuous. If they get sick enough dexamethazone should be used but that’s a medical decision.
The other thing is there has been a move to delay ventilatory support as early ventilation does not improve outcomes.
All the above Ireland should be able to tolerate a higher number of cases without overloading ICUs
Why would you ‘test’ using pcr tests at all, given the inventor said they were completely unsuited to disease diagnosis, and people like Boris Johnson are on record as saying they have a 7% reliability?
Is this a mental wall for you or is it that you don’t believe these facts? If its the latter, i can find the references for you if you like? Or are you closed to that?
Why would you ‘test’ using pcr tests at all, given the inventor said they were completely unsuited to disease diagnosis
I found that said before but I also found it was refuted.
people like Boris Johnson are on record as saying they have a 7% reliability
The full paper Boris Johnson based those comments on involved a scenario. An infected guy is tested, if hes symptomatic or if his disease has progressed to the point that its detectable by a test, he doesn’t board a plane. He’s actually positive and allowed on board when he lands he’s tested. Under those circumstances there’s a 7% chance the disease has progressed during the flight time to the point that its now detectable by testing. Its higher for longer flights and lower for shorter flights.
if the scientific community changes its mind on testing being a reliable way of detecting Covid I’m open to changing my mind as to it being the gold standard test. I’m not open to changing my mind cause someone in a forum found something against best current accepted scientific theory.
The side that most doctors, epidemiologists, and scientists are on (presumably using repeatable experiments and the scientific method) as regards testing is the one I believe in on balance. I don’t pretend for a moment to have an education capable of telling which side is the truth on this but I have to put my blind faith in something.
Oh yes, media “fact checkers”. Some kid fresh out of college (or an intern) with some liberal arts degree and no career prospects in a minimum wage job. That how much the “fact checkers” are paid. A few bucks over minimum wage.
So the “fact checkers”, like you it seems, knows so little about the science that they dont realize that the original HIV statement by Mullis was about a retrovirus which being far more genetically complex leave a far bigger genetic footprint during the PCR process. So whatever he said about PCR for detection of HTLV III is even more applicable to human corona viruses (HCOVs). Retroviruses being an order of magnitude more complex than HCOV.
RT/PCR is a fast cheap convenient diagnostic molecular test when used during the differential diagnostic process in a clinical setting in conjunction with other tests. It is only used for this purpose as a confirmation test when the probable prevalence levels are such that the test conforms to the medically (and legally) accepted criteria of a clinical reliable diagnostic test. Acceptable levels of Type I and Type II errors.
When RT/PCR is uses as a mass screening test the Type I error rate (50% plus) and Type II errors rate (95% plus) are so high at to not only make the test results medically meaningless but under current medical ethics and the applicable laws the use of such a test in this way breaks a hell of a lot of professional and professional liability laws. Its medical malpractice pure and simple
In the last year of researching the professional literature (some of it posted here) I have yet to find one single person who actually knows how the process works, the real world clinical uses of such tests, and the mathematical of the testing process, who stated in print that using a molecular diagnostic confirmation test as an indiscriminate mass screening test had any scientific or medical validity. Not a single one.
What I have seen is a large number of medical bureaucrats and people with only a cursory understanding of the process tell outright lies on multiple occasions. Very deliberately obfuscating for purely political reasons. This is political pure and simple. Zero science involved.
Just one example. The science has not changed since 2003. The diffrential diagnostic process chain for SARs CoV1 was this. First non specific respiratory infection symptoms, then early viral pneumonia symptoms, then cloudy chest X-RAY, and only then the confirmation PCR test for HCOV SARs CoV 1 markers. Usually three positive markers.
If you dont understand why it has to be done in that order and that order only due to the mathematics of sample error rates / prevalence then I must assume you failed Leaving Cert Maths. There is zero mathematical basis for using RT/PCR as a mass screening test and anyone who says otherwise is a charlatan or a bullshit artists.
I posted a paper here many months ago discussing exactly this mathematical problem with prevalence and testing procedures and why only antigen or seroloigcal tests (not molecular) can even come close to be medically acceptable as valid tests for mass screening. Have acceptable levels of Type I and Type II Errors.
Thats the actual science. Not some bullshit written to support the media narrative by a kid at Reuters who majored in something like Media Studies and minored in Interpretive Dance and now has $60K in student loans to pay off. In other words, an idiot.
Correction Nov. 13, 2020: The verdict of this fact check has been changed from false to misleading, to reflect that the quote examined may have been a fair reflection of Mullis’s views, even if not a direct quote. The body of the text is updated in places to further clarify this.
Winston Smith works as a fact-checker for the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s novel 1984:
All I can say is that we should be thankful that Ryan Tubridy, and RTE, have guided us through this dreadful pandemic. Their defined benefit pensions are most richly deserved.
We should all be more literal-minded and guard against venal curiosity and abstract thoughts.