| Most reliable information.Covid-19 23:34 - May 20 with 20192 views | RonaldStump |
So who is providing the most reliable information?
The so called 'Conspiracy Theorists' or the Government (Sage) and their modelling.
Since March 2020 there clearly only one winner here.
Congratulations the so called 'Consiracy Theorists'
Prove me wrong. |  |
| |  |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:12 - May 21 with 3834 views | Scotia |
I'd love to know what you think the conspiracy theorists have been proven to get right.
They seem to change their tune every time their theories become clearly wrong.
Neil Ferguson's model that put us in lockdown isn't far off and I can remember Jeremy Farrar saying the UK would be the worst affected country in Europe. He got that right too.
Do you realise that nobody, not even Bill Gates, can see the future? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:31 - May 21 with 3805 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:12 - May 21 by Scotia |
I'd love to know what you think the conspiracy theorists have been proven to get right.
They seem to change their tune every time their theories become clearly wrong.
Neil Ferguson's model that put us in lockdown isn't far off and I can remember Jeremy Farrar saying the UK would be the worst affected country in Europe. He got that right too.
Do you realise that nobody, not even Bill Gates, can see the future? |
Well only the 10th worse country in Europe since the start of the pandemic.
Only the 110th worst country for deaths in last 7 days. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:50 - May 21 with 3784 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:31 - May 21 by felixstowe_jack |
Well only the 10th worse country in Europe since the start of the pandemic.
Only the 110th worst country for deaths in last 7 days. |
Farrar referred to the number of deaths. Unfortunately that is the UK. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:13 - May 21 with 3733 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:50 - May 21 by Scotia |
Farrar referred to the number of deaths. Unfortunately that is the UK. |
Which is not a valid statistic, Deaths/million is the correct statistic for comparison purposes and the UK is not first, more like 11th in Europe. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:12 - May 21 with 3737 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:13 - May 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Which is not a valid statistic, Deaths/million is the correct statistic for comparison purposes and the UK is not first, more like 11th in Europe. |
Of course it's a valid statistic. It may not be for comparison but it is valid in its own right. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:40 - May 21 with 3717 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:12 - May 21 by Scotia |
Of course it's a valid statistic. It may not be for comparison but it is valid in its own right. |
But he was using it for Comparison with the rest of Europe, was he not? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:21 - May 21 with 3712 views | A_Fans_Dad |
What about the accuracy of PCR testing as used by many governments, who do you believe?
The Conspiracy Theorist Group.
Consisting of those that developed the test, those that carried out a study on the test, those that teach medicine, including the use of testing procedures, some users and 2 Law Courts.
or
The Non Conspiracy Group.
Consisting of the Goverments and some people using it? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:53 - May 21 with 3717 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:40 - May 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
But he was using it for Comparison with the rest of Europe, was he not? |
No he wasn't. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:03 - May 21 with 3711 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:21 - May 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
What about the accuracy of PCR testing as used by many governments, who do you believe?
The Conspiracy Theorist Group.
Consisting of those that developed the test, those that carried out a study on the test, those that teach medicine, including the use of testing procedures, some users and 2 Law Courts.
or
The Non Conspiracy Group.
Consisting of the Goverments and some people using it? |
Ignorant and Iill informed tripe. Funny how there is no better test ever suggested?
What to you propose- reading entrails, tea leaves. Another disgraceful post | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:10 - May 21 with 3700 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:21 - May 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
What about the accuracy of PCR testing as used by many governments, who do you believe?
The Conspiracy Theorist Group.
Consisting of those that developed the test, those that carried out a study on the test, those that teach medicine, including the use of testing procedures, some users and 2 Law Courts.
or
The Non Conspiracy Group.
Consisting of the Goverments and some people using it? |
For this and the other thread.
Reading a few retired or fringe medical opinions is far from the weight of opinion. You have been explained how qPCR works, why it is the most specific and sensitive test that can be delivered realistically for large numbers. I would agree sequencing is better, but is perhaps 10 years away from being the frontline in the U.K.
Most scientists and doctors are in clear support of vaccination- more than 90%, so don’t attempt to suggest otherwise. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:12 - May 21 with 3700 views | Gwyn737 |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:03 - May 21 by Professor |
Ignorant and Iill informed tripe. Funny how there is no better test ever suggested?
What to you propose- reading entrails, tea leaves. Another disgraceful post |
Don’t need those now. Just say “Siri, show me stuff that agrees with me”. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:57 - May 21 with 3679 views | KeithHaynes |
My youngest daughter, husband four children have followed the rules religiously, May I submit this as reliable information based on the fact none of them have confirmed Covid. |  |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:59 - May 21 with 3660 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:53 - May 21 by Scotia |
No he wasn't. |
Quote "I can remember Jeremy Farrar saying the UK would be the worst affected country in Europe. " | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 23:01 - May 21 with 3666 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:59 - May 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Quote "I can remember Jeremy Farrar saying the UK would be the worst affected country in Europe. " |
And we have the most deaths.
Pathetic, morbid point scoring. The man was right and I'm gutted about that. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 01:09 - May 22 with 3641 views | Jack123 |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:03 - May 21 by Professor |
Ignorant and Iill informed tripe. Funny how there is no better test ever suggested?
What to you propose- reading entrails, tea leaves. Another disgraceful post |
But Prof, there are many people calling these pcr tests out, they can't all be lying? |  |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:25 - May 22 with 3583 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 01:09 - May 22 by Jack123 |
But Prof, there are many people calling these pcr tests out, they can't all be lying? |
What’s the alternative? There is not. And look deeper 123. It’s a good test. Thoroughly validated. Highly specific and sensitive and quick. The critics have never suggested a viable alternative. The only problem is false positives when we reach very low levels, but since no test is 100% specific unless hugely insensitive it would be the same regardless of the test used. And are perhaps 1 in 250 false positives better than the 1 in 10 false negatives of other tests? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:58 - May 22 with 3566 views | raynor94 |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:25 - May 22 by Professor |
What’s the alternative? There is not. And look deeper 123. It’s a good test. Thoroughly validated. Highly specific and sensitive and quick. The critics have never suggested a viable alternative. The only problem is false positives when we reach very low levels, but since no test is 100% specific unless hugely insensitive it would be the same regardless of the test used. And are perhaps 1 in 250 false positives better than the 1 in 10 false negatives of other tests? |
Prof, I admire your patience and perseverance in dealing with some of the idiots on here. |  |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:12 - May 22 with 3552 views | onehunglow |
So what do the experts on here believe
How it started?
What is the best treatment?
Is it really not that bad?
What if any lockdown appropriate
What if any distancing and
any need for a mask.
Im challenging fans dad to answer as he seems smarter than a world renowned Professor in his field.
If you're gonna fight someone, be better trained or prepared
Off ya go ... | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:07 - May 22 with 3531 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:58 - May 22 by raynor94 |
Prof, I admire your patience and perseverance in dealing with some of the idiots on here. |
'A little learning is a dangerous thing.'
Pope's words apply very well here. What a conspiracy this would have to be. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:28 - May 22 with 3526 views | Professor |
Just an illustration: HCQ, misinformation and lies
Very early in the pandemic Professor Didier Raoult from Marseille published a paper on the efficacy of HCQ. This was widely publicised and its potential use was touted by many including several populist politicians.
The problem was Raoult's data was highly flawed and the research not conducted with sufficient rigour to justify the conclusion. The majority of well-conducted studies and reviews of data has shown the drug to be ineffective as a therapeutic. The drug is an old anti-malarial, that is toxic with significant side effects. The overwhelming balance of evidence is that this is an ineffective drug in Covid with significant risks of side effects. Indeed there are some trials where the effect has a negative outcome. SO why does this myths persist? Partly because it remains being touted on social media and partly as some people want to believe despite evidence to the contrary. A cult around Raoult. You can follow the HCQ story well in scientific journals-early small scale reports of efficacy based on clinical observation replaced by larger, better controlled and more accurate studies that show the lack of efficacy. Others show other old and cheap drugs like the steroids dexamethasone and budenoside being beneficial for others like Ivermectin any benefit is marginal with an increasing tendency towards ineffective.
But anyone can post that these drugs work or that vaccines have killed 4,000 people despite neither being true.
The case of Raoult is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/12/covid-professor-didier-raoult-hydr
https://forbetterscience.com/2021/03/23/didier-raoult-fraud-je-ne-regrette-rien/
And elements have turned nasty:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/22/world-expert-in-scientific-misco
The point is, as said by Dr WInston, do question everything, keep an open mind to what you are told, but that the overwhelming majority is true, or at least a palatable version of the truth. If you hear or read about models- that's what they are. Guides to form policy not a solid forecast of the future | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:43 - May 22 with 3510 views | max936 |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:58 - May 22 by raynor94 |
Prof, I admire your patience and perseverance in dealing with some of the idiots on here. |
This 100% discussion is mostly spoilt by know it all trolls. |  |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:53 - May 22 with 3508 views | Jack123 |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:58 - May 22 by raynor94 |
Prof, I admire your patience and perseverance in dealing with some of the idiots on here. |
So I'm an idiot for pointing out, that are many people who question the validity of the pcr tests?
I think it would be a boring world, if you are not allowed to ask questions. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:57 - May 22 with 3500 views | Jack123 |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:25 - May 22 by Professor |
What’s the alternative? There is not. And look deeper 123. It’s a good test. Thoroughly validated. Highly specific and sensitive and quick. The critics have never suggested a viable alternative. The only problem is false positives when we reach very low levels, but since no test is 100% specific unless hugely insensitive it would be the same regardless of the test used. And are perhaps 1 in 250 false positives better than the 1 in 10 false negatives of other tests? |
I think it was the way they were conducting the tests prof, cycles used.
I read something the other day, that unless you are ill, a positive test is not valid. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:00 - May 22 with 3496 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:53 - May 22 by Jack123 |
So I'm an idiot for pointing out, that are many people who question the validity of the pcr tests?
I think it would be a boring world, if you are not allowed to ask questions. |
That was a question 123. I don’t think anyone suggests you are a source of misinformation,
More influenced by it. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:20 - May 22 with 3485 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:57 - May 22 by Jack123 |
I think it was the way they were conducting the tests prof, cycles used.
I read something the other day, that unless you are ill, a positive test is not valid. |
Not the case- plenty of asymptomatic carriage. 45
Cycles is high and a reason for some false positives. But, viable virus was detected in the validation beyond Ct40 (40 cycles) and a lower value would lead to a massive false negative increase. The balance would favour not having these. Most positives are in the 20-30 cycle range anyway. It’s an argument to be aware of false positives when we have low numbers, but of the 2,800 positives yesterday perhaps 20 are false. Better safe than sorry | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
