That link you posted does nothing more than state what to do in the event of a false positive. I didn't deny false positives exist. I was refuting your comment that there are a "massive amount of false positive tests".Ironworksfc wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:14 pmOne comment of yours I would like to refute is "the massive amount of false positive tests". No, this is completely wrong. The problem with the tests are not the false positives but the false negatives. False positive tests are very rare indeed. Or if you have evidence to suggest otherwise please share it.Gandalf wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:46 pm
One comment of yours I would like to refute is "the massive amount of false positive tests". No, this is completely wrong. The problem with the tests are not the false positives but the false negatives. False positive tests are very rare indeed. Or if you have evidence to suggest otherwise please share it.
Also, there is one very important fact that you are ignoring here. Currently in the UK there are over 130,000 deaths from Covid. But remember, this is during the time of both the lockdown and the vaccine roll-out, both of which were designed to limit the spread of infection. So effectively the deaths in the UK have been 'limited' to 130,000.
So without those measures what would the figure be?
UK population is 66.65 million. The chance of dying from Covid is statistically 0.66%. So assuming the virus would sweep through the entire population (which unchecked it potentially could do), and also assuming the death rate percentage remained unchanged, that would lead to almost 440,000 deaths.
So when in a previous post you said the chance of dying from Covid was less than 1%, yes, with that statement you were correct. But what you failed to consider was how contagious Covid is. 440,000 is a huge number.
And then what you also need to consider is the amount of lives that have been saved by the NHS. We all know the NHS have been stretched to breaking point. So if the NHS did become overwhelmed then that figure of 440,000 would be much, much higher.
If you dispute any of those figures please explain why.
Refute away, the high cycle threshold (CT value) used
to detect the virus results in false positives, the WHO have previously released guidance on this;
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05
Also, there is one very important fact that you are ignoring here. Currently in the UK there are over 130,000 deaths from Covid. But remember, this is during the time of both the lockdown and the vaccine roll-out, both of which were designed to limit the spread of infection. So effectively the deaths in the UK have been 'limited' to 130,000.
So without those measures what would the figure be?
No different, lockdowns were utterly pointless, kick the can down the road exercise. A large proportion of those deaths could of been avoided if the government saviors hadn't knowingly sent the elderly with Covid back into care homes. The experimental covid jab (not a vaccine) is clearly not stopping hospitalisation and deaths, out did you choose to ignore that part of the government data?
UK population is 66.65 million. The chance of dying from Covid is statistically 0.66%. So assuming the virus would sweep through the entire population (which unchecked it potentially could do), and also assuming the death rate percentage remained unchanged, that would lead to almost 440,000 deaths.
So when in a previous post you said the chance of dying from Covid was less than 1%, yes, with that statement you were correct. But what you failed to consider was how contagious Covid is. 440,000 is a huge number.
How on earth did you get to that figure? In my age category and most under the age of 80, is over 99.9% survival rate.
And then what you also need to consider is the amount of lives that have been saved by the NHS. We all know the NHS have been stretched to breaking point. So if the NHS did become overwhelmed then that figure of 440,000 would be much, much higher.
Utter horse shit, no more strain for the NHS than any other year with the usual respiratory illness. Have you forgotten about the unused nightingale facilities?
If you dispute any of those figures please explain why.
So I repeat, this comment is wrong. Or alternatively please come up with eveidence to back up your claim.
Maybe you'd like to read this fact-checking site on cycle threshold values. Althought I wonder would you even believe fact checking sites if what they report goes against your agenda?
https://fullfact.org/health/cycle-threshold-values/
You say the that "lockdowns were utterly pointless" and without them the amount of deaths would be "no different".
Please explain your logic behind these comments. The way we can catch Covid is to come into contact with someone else who has Covid. So if we limit contact we limit spread. That would be the logical anyway. But you seem to have a different logic. Explain.
You say "The experimental covid jab (not a vaccine) is clearly not stopping hospitalisation and deaths".
Firstly, nobody has suggested that the vaccine would stop hospitalisation and deaths. It has been made clear many, many times that no vaccine is 100% effective. The different vaccines have different effectiveness rates ranging from anywhere between 60% to 95% effective. Not 100%.
And secondly, you refer to it as "The experimental covid jab (not a vaccine)". Why do you say that? Why do you think it is not a vaccine?
I find it bizzare that you think all this is putting no more strain on the NHS than any previous year. So as for all the struggles that the NHS has been reportedly going through, do you think it's all fake news?
And regarding the Nightingale hospitals you mention, how do you think that works? Do you think they are sitting there waiting to spring into action, fully staffed and fully equiped?
