insaintee

Too f**king right your not 🤣

I have no idea who Garry is 🙄

DM me your bank details and your in

It is my own opinion. Formed from years of experience of his posts. Sometimes funny, always idiotic. PS Garry is in the forum clique🤓I don't think so.

Shull is a idiot but doesn't post anything with aggressive tendencies. Shull is definitely an idiot

Flat Earther found

Scotland Coronavirus Tracker - Deaths (travellingtabby.com) Deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland | National Records of Scotland (nrscotland.gov.uk) COVID-19 Daily Dashboard - PHS COVID-19 | Tableau Public

Indeed, however, in general we tend to go with what professional medical opinion puts on the death certificate. I think we can be pretty confident that the ONS and NRS figures are robust, although I guarantee they are being closely inspected to look for evidence of systemic errors, at the start of the outbreak where covid was novel to most practitioners and covid testing was limited, it is possible that there was an under recording of Covid deaths. NHS services have not been "shut down," but have been reduced in no urgent areas and screening by Primary care has also been reduced, mostly be a reduction in the numbers of people presenting at ED and GP practices. As I said the two areas of most concern out with Covid-19 are cardio vascular disease and Dementia where deaths are significantly above the expected. But the numbers of excess deaths for these conditions are much much lower than the Covid-19 death toll.

I am comfortable that influenza deaths are not higher than in a normal year. Every year @250-300k people die in the uk. Influenza makes up a sizable proportion of that every year, this year it looks if anything to be lower than normal. In terms of deaths Covid is producing around 50-80k extra deaths on to that total. In terms of other conditions people should be concerned about as they have higher numbers of deaths than normal, Cardio-vascular deaths and deaths from Dementia/Alzheimer's are the two that stand out as being of concern. Some of both these groups could be undiagnosed Covid deaths, but it does seem that both those groups are areas of concern.

Influenza viruses would not give positive test results for Covid and the late stage symptoms are not the same as those for influenza. so these are not misdiagnosed flu cases. Secondly the scale of the excess deaths is such that they are in no way comparable to influenza deaths either before or after the introduction of vaccination At the peak deaths were running at a rate of double our expected deaths. In the bbc article it says flu season starts any time between Oct and Feb but generally we don't see the peak in deaths related to flu until after Christmas. (yes I am worried about what the post Christmas situation will look like. A third wave is the last thing we need). There is a slight reduction in respiratory conditions other than Covid as a cause of death s. At first glance you might thing that suggests some degree of misdiagnosis. But equally measures to protect the population from Covid ( a respiratory virus) may well protect from other respiratory diseases that are also respiratory viruses. Better air quality due to reduced air traffic is also posited as an explanation. As far as I am aware from the limited data I have seen, the flu death number are below average, but are consistent with previous years and almost exactly in line with a clear trend of reducing deaths from these causes. Already in the second wave we are seeing significant number of excess deaths due to covid. I'm not going to forecast how may covid deaths we are going to end up with but a rough rule of thumb figure (0.5% of cases dying) suggest that 10.000 excess deaths is highly possible and that as you say 20,000 excess deaths is also possible. These would be in addition to the normal number of cases dying from flu and pneumonia. The number of excess deaths is highly unusual. Basically we expect the number of deaths this year above the expected to be equivalent to the town of Greenock, with maybe Port Glasgow and Gourock thrown in for good measure if things go badly. I recommend this site which has much more accessible and clearer analysis the SPH website but uses the same data. UK Coronavirus Tracker - Deaths (travellingtabby.com)

So basically that is what I said. We had a flu peak (as we do every year ) in the early spring. The onset of flu season has not yet began for this winter. And usually does not start until after Christmas. The excess deaths due to Covid are much higher than those for flu or for what we expect in a bad flu season. This is actually a very good and clear debunking of several Scamdemic myths. And I think more on this board should read it.

Thank you I will read that, PCR does indeed act as a DNA amplifier and detector, which is why fragments of the Virus will not be detected. It will only detect RNA segments as you say which outwith the protection of a cell or within a viral capsule are exposed to the impact of biological agents which break them down quickly, so effectively the entire virus must be present. Fragments of the coating and spikes may persist longer but would not be detected.

I think you need to do more research. We did have flu deaths this year, when we would normally expect them (January) the Covid death is April May and June, and now in September, October and November are not masking flu deaths, and if this was a flu then the rate of deaths would be such that would be equally concerned. The PCR test as opposed to the antibody test, does not pick up fragments of virus and they would not be detectable after 11 months. If you have sufficient viral load to give a positive test then symptomatic or not you are likely to be infectious. That's the whole point of test and protect, to isolate infectious cases that otherwise would be spreading the disease. Clearly and from your comments you agree that asymptotic test positive cases are what spreads the disease. Hence the tests and the isolation policy is most certainly not just about scaremongering. You can rerun the mortality charts using ten year averages instead of five, you rerun them using the maximum values for the past ten years and you still get massive excess deaths. At the peak, deaths were running at almost twice the expected level. on a UK basis. Your good "professor" knows all this but still feels he has to peddle his crock of shit.

for your education Epidemiology 101: Public Health & Disease Conditions | EnvironmentalScience.org

Deaths are compared to the 5 year average. Deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland | National Records of Scotland (nrscotland.gov.uk) Clearly there is an increase in deaths. I really don't think the jury is out on asymptomatic spread. How do think it spread in the first place

Which is why we do statistics😷 Perhaps you've heard of correlation co-efficient or other such methods.

No it's not. If you want to be asinine (and from past experience I'm guessing you do) then I should have said a sustained and clear increase or trend upwards in the test positive rate indicates an increase in the prevalence of the disease in a population, Which is what we have seen. And while there is no guarantee that the false positive percentage should remain constant, it should only vary around a constant mean value. An upward trend or a sustained increase is only really explicable in terms of an increase in the prevalence. But of course you know this being a Phd and all that.

so this is about case definition, and it is true that a positive case in an asymptomatic positive would not have been picked up previously. But asymptomatic cases can still spread the virus and the purpose of testing is to identify these cases and stop the spread. There for yes, the number of cases reported under the improved testing regime is not indicating the same prevalence as the testing level under the previous test system. But the that is more about the inadequacy of the previous testing done. Also we don't really know the extent to which that is making a difference, it may be quite minimal. Both hospitalizations and deaths are rising these are not false positives in any sense of the world. Sounds to me like the professor is spouting a crock of shit.

Hopefully they are not like taxis, only for those with deep pockets😷

It wouldn't which is kind of my point. Is that's also your point. The percentage of false positive should be constant no matter how many test you conduct. If the percentage positives increases than that indicates that your testing is picking up more true positives and that the true prevalence of the disease is increasing. And hence a big hole in the "professor's" argument.

The problem of false positives is pretty well know and researched. While there may be some truth in his ideas. The positive rate (percentage of tests positive) would only change if the prevalence of the Covid-19 changed which it has.

Has it by passed you that Test and Protect is the UK government's responsibility😎

I can think of a few🤓

I'm talking about provisional data. Sudden deaths are not deaths by misadventure, these can take months.