I agree with you that it is certainly not a âkiller diseaseâ in the way it was thought at the start and some simpletons still believe. Its absolutely no danger statistically to kids or most people. You keep banging on about that with statistics etc when it seems to be a point nobody here disagrees with you on. The reason for restrictions are as Thomas Brady outlined and Iâd agree with him seem to be the only course to take certainly at this stage.
The vast majority of medical people doctors who work every day in hospitals, who know more about this than you and me, seem to disagree with you about the hospitals being overrun and in a functioning democracy we have to go with what they say. Youâre entitled to your opinion about letting it rip but itâs a fairly niche one to say the least and an easy one to have when youâre not actually making the decisions.
If you accept that 97% of those who tested positive were not infected, then the actual case number for Ireland is about 3,000 so the mortality rate is 50%.
Neither do I, except that the track and trace system means that the bank balance of the track and trace fellas is the only area where there is actual genuine exponential growth
I donât think just letting it rip was ever a viable option, unless you were able to send all the over 50s to Lanzarote while the under 50s went on the piss for a month. Having said that it is a bit of a disgrace that a year into this the hospitals and care homes are still riddled, or perhaps more riddled than ever.
You do realize thereâs probably about 1.5 million that are either obese, have underlying conditions or are over 65? Itâs not like weâve locked down to mind 10 people.
From mid December I think, the big event was 5 million leaving Wuhan in early to mid January to escape it, and Chinese New Year at the end of January. Given how infectious it is I canât believe it was around earlier than December, we would have seen exponential growth much earlier.
October according to some sources. A pal is a consultant based in derry, their initial training said it was in the US mid summer '19.
Not a clue, any of us.
The PCR test runs for a number of cycles - to take @glenshane example say 45 cycles. Essentially what it looks to do during each cycle is double the amount of viral RNA in the sample and then at a certain point this is detectable. The Cycle number at which the virus is detectable and passes a threshold value is the recorded result - the Ct value ie Cycle threshold. Therefore the lower the Ct value of a sample the higher amount of viral RNA in the original sample and the higher the Ct value the lower the amount of RNA. If there is no viral RNA in the original sample (the vast majority of cases) then no Ct value is returned at all.
@glenshane keeps mentioning 45 cycles which is the clear sign of someone who doesnât know how PCR works - and just parrots internet conspiracies. It doesnât matter if the PCR is run for 45 cycles or 100 cycles - if there is no viral DNA present then no Ct value will be returned.
He is correct in that samples that return a high Ct value (say in the 30âs) indicate that only a small amount of viral RNA is present on the sample. However, I think itâs incorrect to present these as false positives. The small amount of viral RNA (and its there donât forget unlike the vast majority of people where there is none detected) could be because itâs the beginning or end of an infection or because of the swabbing technique. They could be infectious or about to be infectious so prudently theyâre advised to self-isolate etc.
Bottom line - if you donât have viral RNA in your throat/nose -then itâs extremely unlikely you will register a Ct value. If you do register a Ct value then thereâs something there.
Last point, the majority of âdetectedâ results from labs would be samples with Ct values less than 30 ie high viral load which this argument doesnât apply to
You poor misfortune, if you want to big yourself up by having a cut at me then you should quote me, instead of quoting someone sort of half misquoting me. If I was being kind Iâd say part your problem may lie in being unable to distinguish between a question and a statement. If I was being unkind Iâd say you were still seething at making a holy show of yourself a few days ago
If you look at what I said youâll see that I asked a question and expressed uncertainty about whether or not the 97% figure was reliable.
As for claiming that I donât understand how pcr testing works⌠Congratulations on pushing an open door:
Seeing that you now accept that you donât know how PCR testing works itâs odd that you go on and on about it - throwing out various âfactsâ which all seem to suit your tinfoil hat narrative that itâs a big fraud. My post was purely to try inform and bring some reality to your stats.
But now that weâve established you donât have a notion what youâre talking about we can probably leave it at that and the more sensible posters on here will just just know to ignore your ill-informed repetitive rants.
