Covid stats

[strappinglad]

Here is a link to a video that talks about the current issue of Delta in Israel as well as third shots . Take from it what you will. 

 COVID Surges Among VACCINATED In Israel - YouTube

 

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Same old, same old

Yes, but it works every time. Why mess with success?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Speaking of mistreatment.

Ok sounds like average and unremarkable. THEY ARE NOT OK.

Family woes are the worst. 

[Harry T. Clark]

On 9/24/2021 at 7:12 AM, MiserereNobis said:

@CelestialSeething and @Harry T. Clark

Your claims about the covid test have been debunked. Will you retract them? Or is your m.o. to spread falsehoods and then hide when they are shown to be falsehoods?

Where have they been debunked?  Will you show me and walk me through the supposed debunking or just hide like you accuse me of doing?

Here is an article that supposedly debunks the claims that the covid test cannot differentiate between covid and the flu.

https://khn.org/news/article/fact-check-cdc-pcr-covid-test-distinguishes-from-flu-eua-request-withdrawal/

First, let's look at the announcement from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

In the lab alert, it says:

Quote

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing.

What can we surmise from the above statement?  (1) the prior test didn't detect or differentiate between sars-cov-2 and influenza viruses.  I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.  Supposedly the pcr test was only meant to detect covid, but; (2) The testing change was needed because we need to see whether a patient presenting with symptoms that are common with flu and covid has flu or covid.  Also, perhaps, more importantly, the patient could have had both and the current testing regimen would only show covid (3) The implication is that some who tested positive with covid actually had the flu.  The flu disappeared last year and was it because of covid crowding out the flu or was it because of the poor pcr test?  Obviously a better testing regimen is needed.  Finally, (4) false positives could have been the flu and therefore a misdiagnosis could have happened.  False positives are a problem, especially when, as is common, testing uses more than 35 cycles. This is the heart of the matter.

In the supposed debunking article cited above, the author admits that there was a need for a change in order to detect flu:

Quote

Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University, said his take on the CDC’s message is that, because flu season is on the horizon, a patient might come in with respiratory symptoms that could be attributed to either covid or the flu. Laboratories need to start testing for both covid and various flu viruses.

[so, by implication, some patients had been erroneously diagnosed as having covid when they had the flu]

Then the guy inexplicably claims that

Quote

But the lab alert does not mean the CDC’s test cannot differentiate between covid and the flu.

He attempts to prove his point by saying that the pcr test was only designed to detect sars-cov-2. 

Quote

In fact, the CDC’s 2019-nCoV RT-PCR test was developed to look for the presence of a nucleic acid found only in the covid virus, said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

“It is not remotely accurate that the CDC test doesn’t differentiate between flu and SARS-CoV-2. It doesn’t detect influenza. It only detects SARS-CoV-2,” said Wroblewski. “If flu and covid are both circulating, you would be able to detect only SARS-CoV-2 and not flu.”

Fair enough, but, it doesn't touch on the false positive problem, the real reason for the change.  Flu and covid have similar symptoms and an accurate test is needed to be able to tell the difference because symptoms won't give the answer.

This leads to the following: a new test shouldn't be necessary if it were 100% reliable.  If a positive test comes back, then it is certainly sars-cov-2.  A negative test, by implication would mean it's something else, not covid, most likely the flu, as the symptoms are close to the same.

[mburgess1982]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Satan is cunning but he isn’t smart. I don’t see a lot of new ideas coming from the great tempter. Same old, same old.

People are susceptible to manipulation but hard to control in an exact manner. Looney conspiracy theories are based on the idea that master geniuses can predict what people will do ten steps in advance and it never works that way in reality. 

As to someone wearing a mask alone in their car by driving being proof that Satan is smart and people are controllable…..that is just dumb. I have done it. I had a really short trip between two places I had to be masked so why would I remove it and just have to put it back on. The mockery of people wearing masks in cars is common and has clearly manipulated you. How does it feel to be a pawn of Satan in his great “laugh at people masked in cars” conspiracy that will overthrow all freedom everywhere somehow……?

A global deadly pandemic that we are all fighting to overcome so we can all just "get back to normal" vs a very corrupt global elite striving for more power and control over the population through various lies, deceit and manipulation. It is clear we view this situation through a very different lens

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, but it works every time. Why mess with success?

Just for the novelty of trying something new. But that is not the devil’s way. He is boring and not creative and not smart.

[The Nehor]

Just now, mburgess1982 said:

A global deadly pandemic that we are all fighting to overcome so we can all just "get back to normal" vs a very corrupt global elite striving for more power and control over the population through various lies, deceit and manipulation. It is clear we view this situation through a very different lens

Yeah, you are nutty.

[smac97]

I just came across an article called "A COVID Cribsheet."  It purports to contain "30 facts you need to know."  Here's the link.

As I read this I thought it might be an interesting exercise to treat these "facts" as if they were being presented in a legal context.  Specifically, in American law a lawsuit can include a "Motion for Summary Judgment" in which a party (either plaintiff or defendant) can present the judge with a "Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute."  Each "fact" is presented in a separately-numbered paragraph, and is also supported/substantiated by a citation to admissible evidence.  Once the motion is filed, the other party is required to file a response to it.  In Utah, the requirements for the response include a verbatim quote of each "fact" and a specific response that is also supported by citation to admissible evidence.  After that, the moving party files a "reply" that addresses any new issues presented by the opposing party.  The motion is then submitted to the judge, who reads the materials, usually conducts a hearing, and renders a decision on the motion.  The moving party only wins on summary judgment if A) there are no genuine disputes about the "material" (that is, the most important) facts, and B) the moving party is entitled to judgment "as a matter of law."  

With so much being thrown at us about COVID, I am hoping that participants with disparate viewpoints will weigh in as to whether the "facts" in the above article are "in dispute" or not.  

Here we go.  As a precursor, by labeling these as "facts" I am not conceding that they are established as such.  The purpose of this exercise is to determine the validity and correctness of these statements.  Also, for the sake of (relative) brevity, let's break this up and address just the firt fifteen (15) statements:

Statement of Fact #1: 

Quote

1. The survival rate of “Covid” is over 99%. Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid.

 

Almost all studies on the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) of Covid have returned results between 0.04% and 0.5%. Meaning Covid’s survival rate is at least 99.5%.

Response to Statement of #1: 

These sorts of "big picture" statements are really hard to either establish or falsify.  As noted in further detail below, what "counts" as a COVID death is very much in dispute, such that any statistical "survival rate" is hard to pin down.

That said, Johns Hopkins, which I would cite as a reliable medical authority, puts the U.S. mortality rate at 1.6%.

Statement of Fact #2:

Quote

2. There has been NO unusual excess mortality. The press has called 2020 the UK’s “deadliest year since world war two”, but this is misleading because it ignores the massive increase in the population since that time. A more reasonable statistical measure of mortality is Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR):

 

By this measure, 2020 isn’t even the worst year for mortality since 2000, In fact since 1943 only 9 years have been better than 2020.

Similarly, in the US the ASMR for 2020 is only at 2004 levels:

For a detailed breakdown of how Covid affected mortality across Western Europe and the US click here. What increases in mortality we have seen could be attributable to non-Covid causes [facts 7, 9 & 19].

Response to Statement of #2: 

Again, this "big picture" stuff is hard to pin down.  That said, does anyone dispute this?  If so, please present evidence and argument.

Statement of Fact #3:

Quote

3. “Covid death” counts are artificially inflated. Countries around the globe have been defining a “Covid death” as a “death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test”.

Healthcare officials from Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice:

Removing any distinction between dying of Covid, and dying of something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to over-counting of “Covid deaths”. British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this “substantial over-estimate” as early as last spring. Other mainstream sources have reported it, too.

Considering the huge percentage of “asymptomatic” Covid infections [14], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [fact 4] and the potential for false-positive tests [fact 18], this renders the Covid death numbers an extremely unreliable statistic.

Response to Statement of #3: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #4:

Quote

4. The vast majority of covid deaths have serious comorbidities. In March 2020, the Italian government published statistics showing 99.2% of their “Covid deaths” had at least one serious comorbidity.

These included cancer, heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer’s, kidney failure and diabetes (among others). Over 50% of them had three or more serious pre-existing conditions.

This pattern has held up in all other countries over the course of the “pandemic”. An October 2020 FOIA request to the UK’s ONS revealed less than 10% of the official “Covid death” count at that time had Covid as the sole cause of death.

Response to Statement of #4: 

In the law there is a think known as "but for" causation, described here:

Quote

In legal matters, "but-for", "sine qua non", causa sine qua non,^[9] or "cause-in-fact" causation, or condicio sine qua non, is a circumstance in which a certain act is a material cause of a certain injury or wrongdoing, without which the injury would not have occurred. It is established by the "but-for" test: but for the act having occurred, the injury would not have happened.

The defendant's negligent conduct is the actual cause of the plaintiff's injury if the harm would not have occurred to the plaintiff "but for" the negligent conduct of the defendant. (Perkins)

This type of causation is often contrasted with substantial-factor causation. The substantial factor test is used when there are multiple negligent tortfeasors which either (1) all caused the injury, in which case any and all of them are 100% joint and severally liable (treated as the group but suing the money) and the charged defendant would have to implead or sue the others to square the damages, or (2) only one could have actually caused the injury but they were all negligent in the same way and that one cannot be determined, in which case the burden shifts and any of them that cannot show their negligence was not the cause is 100% joint and severally liable. The purpose of this is allow the aggrieved party to get their damages, and make the negligent tortfeasors square up amongst themselves. See e.g. Hill v. Edmonds, (N.Y., 1966); Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. Co., (Minn., 1920)

In Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs. LLC, the U.S. 5th Circuit interpreted the language of the Jury System Improvement Act in prohibiting employers from terminating employees "by reason of" jury service as meaning "but-for" causation: the employee must show that the termination of employment would not have occurred "but for" that jury service. This is a higher burden for the plaintiff employee than merely showing that the jury service was a motivating factor for the termination.^[10]

Comorbidities do not, of course, ameliorate the seriousness of Covid.  But comorbidities have been with us for time out of mind in relation to various health maladies, including widespread serious ones like the flu.  And yet we have never destroyed tens of thousands of businesses, livelihoods, economies, and trillions of dollars in wealth by shutting down entire societies for months and months and months because of the flu.

Anyway, what do you think of this statement?  is it established or not?

Statement of Fact #5:

Quote

5. Average age of “Covid death” is greater than the average life expectancy. The average age of a “Covid death” in the UK is 82.5 years. In Italy it’s 86. Germany, 83. Switzerland, 86. Canada, 86. The US, 78, Australia, 82.

In almost all cases the median age of a “Covid death” is higher than the national life expectancy.

As such, for most of the world, the “pandemic” has had little-to-no impact on life expectancy. Contrast this with the Spanish flu, which saw a 28% drop in life expectancy in the US in just over a year. [source]

Response to Statement of #5: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #6:

Quote

6. Covid mortality exactly mirrors the natural mortality curve. Statistical studies from the UK and India have shown that the curve for “Covid death” follows the curve for expected mortality almost exactly:

 

The risk of death “from Covid” follows, almost exactly, your background risk of death in general.

The small increase for some of the older age groups can be accounted for by other factors.[facts 7, 9 & 19]

Response to Statement of #6: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #7:

Quote

7. There has been a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs. Watchdogs and government agencies have reported huge increases in the use of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) over the last twenty months.

In the US, hospitals considered “universal DNRs” for any patient who tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the DNR system was abused in New York.

In the UK there was an “unprecdented” rise in “illegal” DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed “blanket DNRs” for entire nursing homes.

A study done by Sheffield Univerisity found over one-third of all “suspected” Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24 hours of hospital admission.

Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any increases in mortality in 2020/21.[Facts 2 & 6]

Response to Statement of #7: 

I hadn't heard this one before.  The concept of universal DNRs is pretty frightening.  From one of the above links:

Quote

Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago has been discussing a do-not-resuscitate policy for infected patients, regardless of the wishes of the patient or their family members — a wrenching decision to prioritize the lives of the many over the one.
...
Officials at George Washington University Hospital in the District say they have had similar conversations, but for now will continue to resuscitate covid-19 patients using modified procedures, such as putting plastic sheeting over the patient to create a barrier. The University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle, one of the country’s major hot spots for infections, is dealing with the problem by severely limiting the number of responders to a contagious patient in cardiac or respiratory arrest.
...
Several large hospital systems — Atrium Health in the Carolinas, Geisinger in Pennsylvania and regional Kaiser Permanente networks — are looking at guidelines that would allow doctors to override the wishes of the coronavirus patient or family members on a case-by-case basis due to the risk to doctors and nurses, or a shortage of protective equipment, say ethicists and doctors involved in those conversations. But they would stop short of imposing a do-not-resuscitate order on every coronavirus patient. The companies declined to comment.

Yeesh.

Statement of Fact #8:

Quote

8. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease. There is little to no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting “Covid deaths”. If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all.

“Covid deaths” in Florida (no lockdown) vs California (lockdown)

“Covid deaths” in Sweden (no lockdown) vs UK (lockdown)

Response to Statement of #8: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #9:

Quote

9. Lockdowns kill people. There is strong evidence that lockdowns – through social, economic and other public health damage – are deadlier than the “virus”.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed by the economic impact of lockdowns, while tens of millions more face possible poverty and famine.

Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed and delayed surgeries and screenings are going to see increased mortality from heart disease, cancer et al. in the near future.

The impact of lockdown would account for the small increases in excess mortality [Facts 2 & 6]

Response to Statement of #9: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #10:

Quote

10. Hospitals were never unusually over-burdened. the main argument used to defend lockdowns is that “flattening the curve” would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all.

In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were over-flowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017 Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping in corridors. A paper JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals “typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months”.

In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter.

As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020 that they would be “re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately” and that “as result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case.”

This means they removed thousands of beds. During an alleged deadly pandemic, they reduced the maximum occupancy of hospitals. Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal.

In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency hospitals that were never used.

Response to Statement of #10: 

This one seems to be fairly controversial.  From August 27:

Quote

Hospital facilities and public health agencies are scrambling to add capacity as the number of coronavirus cases continue to rise statewide. But many Idaho residents don’t seem to feel the same urgency.
...

Coronavirus-related hospital admissions have been doubling every two weeks since July 24, he said. Thursday there were between 162 and 170 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in St. Luke’s facilities.

“If we take that over the next two weeks and double that, we’re in a real, real difficult state that is well above any of the prior peaks that we had,” Johnson said. “We don’t have room for those numbers to double.”

Neighboring states are in similar straits. St. Luke’s has been getting regular calls from overwhelmed facilities in Oregon, Washington and Nevada looking for places to send patients. Oregon has contracted with a private medical company to send “crisis teams” of nurses, respiratory therapists and paramedics to its hardest-hit hospitals in hopes of easing some of the load. Idaho’s public health leaders have requested help from FEMA, but the state is competing against others also requesting the same aid.

And because hospitalizations generally occur about two weeks after the patient is first infected with coronavirus, the state’s climbing number of positive tests could mean any help may not come soon enough for some patients. More than 1,000 newly confirmed cases were reported on Wednesday and the daily number of new cases has been trending steadily upward.

 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #11:

Quote

11. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the “gold standard” for Covid diagnosis. But the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool, and said so publicly:

PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

Response to Statement of #11: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #12:

Quote

12. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The “gold standard” PCR tests for Covid are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.

A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, a reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus.

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.” And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis.

You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests here, here and here.

Response to Statement of #12: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #13:

Quote

13. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.

Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35″.

In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%.

The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.

Response to Statement of #13: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #14:

Quote

14. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out a briefing memo on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:

when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning that “asymptomatic” positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:

Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

Response to Statement of #14: 

Thoughts?

Statement of Fact #15:

Quote

15. The scientific basis for Covid tests is questionable. The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.

They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly “peer-reviewed” in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.

Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology.

They have also requested the release of the journal’s peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply.

The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every Covid PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.

Response to Statement of #15: 

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

I think it's a crap ton of claims from a site that gets banned a lot.

How certain are you that none of these claims haven't already been debunked?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Just for the novelty of trying something new. But that is not the devil’s way. He is boring and not creative and not smart.

Smart enough to cause his Father great sorrow and his older Brother infinite suffering. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Chum]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Smart enough to cause his Father great sorrow and his older Brother infinite suffering. 

Pretty sure this isn't an indicator of intelligence.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

I got my numbers for Alberta from the Alberta.ca website. It shows 82.3% have taken one dose and 73.4% fully vaccinated. There seems to be a discrepancy across different websites but I wasn't purposely "fudging the numbers" as you suggested
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm

I can't find those numbers on that link using the find command. I looked around, can't find anything with vaccination rates on that site.   Give me the specific page.  

6 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

As far as a Global conspiracy goes Satan is very cunning and smart, you don't think he would be able to pull off a conspiracy on a global scale, considering he's probably done this many many times before? It doesn't require mass cooperation across all levels of Governments involving thousands of people and if one person spills the beans the whole thing falls apart. All it requires is a small group at the top of some of these NGO's to create global policy and everybody follows suit and toes the line for fear of losing their jobs.  Of course there are and have been whistleblowers but they are quickly dismissed and/or discredited by the propagandist mainstream media

 Satan only works through people who have to coordinate with each other.  

Just to clarify, you think a group over some NGO's are capable of deceiving the US government, along with all other world governments.   Which NGO's have that kind of influence to control reported ICU rates in every State in the US and every Province in Canada, add to that Mexico, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, South Africa, Egypt, etc. etc. etc.  I sure would love to know which NGO or group of NGO's could pull that off.   How does that work exactly?  How exactly does an NGO control local health departments and the CDC in every nation across the globe?  Seriously. Back up your theory.  Explain it.  

You do realize that I could say "you don't think that Satan could pull it off?" to every single conspiracy theory that exists...right?  It doesn't really give any credence to your theory, sorry.  Try again. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Smart enough to cause his Father great sorrow and his older Brother infinite suffering. 

Are you also buying into this global conspiracy theory of NGO's inspired by Satan trying to take over the world by getting us to wear masks by inflating ICU numbers, or are you just arguing his side for the sake of arguing?   There are a dozen plus Covid manufacturers, none of which are NGO's.  Are they all coordinating together.  How exactly does this all work exactly?

Edited September 26, 2021 by pogi

[strappinglad]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

   There are a dozen plus Covid manufacturers,  

Hang on, are you saying that there are a dozen companies manufacturing the covid virus ? Now that's a conspiracy worthy of investigating !!! ( tongue in cheek ) 😲

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

I think it's a crap ton of claims from a site that gets banned a lot.

How certain are you that none of these claims haven't already been debunked?

Huh.  I had no idea.  I've never heard of ilzero hedge.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I’m sorry, but a conspiracy on such a global level would require some serious cooperation, negotiation, united vision/agreement, and organization between world governments with competent world leaders who could carry out a conspiracy on such an enormous global scale, which includes the involvement of all hospital systems and local health departments.

And for those of us who are Latter-day Saints, we next need to accept that the living oracles of God are either 1) part of the conspiracy or 2) completely deceived into supporting it. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

can't find those numbers on that link using the find command. I looked around, can't find anything with vaccination rates on that site.   Give me the specific page.  

You have to click on the Vaccinations subtopic under the Statistics heading which gives you this:

Quote

Vaccination data are up-to-date as of end of day September 23, 2021

 

5,963,532 doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered in Alberta

82.3 percent of 12+ population has received at least one dose (70% total population)

73.4 percent of 12+ population fully vaccinated (62.4% total population)

 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  I had no idea.  I've never heard of ilzero hedge.

Did you research any of the claims before posting them?

[The Nehor]

 

Statement #1: Ignores the suffering and possible long-term effects on survivors. It assumes you have nothing to worry about as long as you survive. Also predates the more infectious and dangerous variant.

Statement #2: Wrong.

Statement #3: Mostly wrong, there is no vast conspiracy to blame everything on Covid and if there were it would not explain why there are so many more people dying.

Statement #4: Partially true but there are a LOT of people with comorbidities. Also changed with Delta.

Statement #5: Even if true deaths of people over the median age of death will push down life expectancy since they would have lived longer without it.

Statement #6: False.

Statement #7: True, but these universal DNR orders are to ration health care to maximize survival. A lot of people who die of Covid are 95%+ certain to die a week or two before dying but are taking up ICU capacity when there are people waiting who have a better chance to survive. It is triage. It is what happens when health care demands exceed supply. You have to decide who to help.

Statement #8: Rubbish.

Statement #9: Absolute garbage.

Statement #10: LOL, wrong.

Statement #11: Lots of things have uses other than their original intended use.

Statement #12: Testing was the Wild West at first but this has calmed considerably. The tests are reasonably accurate.

Statement #13: Not correct.

Statement #14: Some false positives do occur. It was wise for the WHO to warn of that. Testing again is good.

Statement #15: Conspiracy garbage.

 

Conclusion: Find better sources.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Smart enough to cause his Father great sorrow and his older Brother infinite suffering. 

I’ve suffered far more from the stupidity of those I love than from their cleverness.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

In the supposed debunking article cited above, the author admits that there was a need for a change in order to detect flu:

Quote

Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University, said his take on the CDC’s message is that, because flu season is on the horizon, a patient might come in with respiratory symptoms that could be attributed to either covid or the flu. Laboratories need to start testing for both covid and various flu viruses.

[so, by implication, some patients had been erroneously diagnosed as having covid when they had the flu]

Then the guy inexplicably claims that

Quote

But the lab alert does not mean the CDC’s test cannot differentiate between covid and the flu.

He attempts to prove his point by saying that the pcr test was only designed to detect sars-cov-2. 

All of this was covered by Pogi, Calm, and me, and you did not respond to it. I'll just say this.

Your problem is when you say: so, by implication, some patients had been erroneously diagnosed as having covid when they had the flu

That is not the implication. You are drawing a conclusion that is false. We know it is false because the report tells us so, and you quote that in the very next quote box. You say it is inexplicable, but that is only because you have already drawn your conclusion without accepting the rest of the facts.

The test can differentiate between the two. It just cannot say if you have the flu or not. All it can say is whether or not you have covid. If you have the flu, the test won't tell you that.

Please re-read Pogi and Calm's responses to you (and mine as well). I don't need to repeat what has already been said, especially since you didn't address us at all.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

This leads to the following: a new test shouldn't be necessary if it were 100% reliable.  If a positive test comes back, then it is certainly sars-cov-2.  A negative test, by implication would mean it's something else, not covid, most likely the flu, as the symptoms are close to the same.

I'll respond to this last part, too. No medical test is 100% reliable -- that's a ridiculous thing to use to attack a test. And yes, if the test comes back positive, then it is covid (except for false positives, which are possible in all medical tests). And if it comes back negative, we can NOT say it is the flu. You'd have to run a separate test. A false covid test does not equal true flu. The CDC is saying to use a test that test both for covid AND the flu. Sounds good to me -- that's one less test you'd have to administer.

[Calm]

I am assuming Clark’s reasoning is now this, he can correct me if wrong…there are lots of people out there who have flu. Because some symptoms of flu overlap with Covid, people who have flu or their doctors wonder if they may have Covid rather than the flu and will therefore test them. 
 

Some of these with only flu will get false positive results, thus raising the Covid case count. 
 

The question is whether there are enough false positives in this group that could account for the numbers.  There are not.  Confusion has occurred because of not differentiating between random people (healthy and unhealthy in a variety of ways) and those with symptoms, even ones that overlap with other diseases.  See below. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/54270373

Quote

What Hartley-Brewer said confused the idea of random testing with community testing for Covid. Those are two different situations, and false positives have a very different impact in each case.

If you tested 1,000 people at random for Covid-19 in early September, for example, data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) infection study suggests you should have expected one of them to actually have the virus.

With a false positive rate of 0.8% - a figure used by Ms Hartley-Brewer and within the broad range of what we think might be the actual rate for community testing - you would get eight false positives. So in that context, it's true that roughly 90% of positives would be false.

But - crucially - the people going for community testing for Covid-19 (at places such as drive-through centres) are not a random sample of the public. They are people who have symptoms, are in care homes or are in hot-spot areas.

IMAGE SOURCE, PA MEDIA

Figures for late September from Public Health England show that 7% of community tests were positive. That means of every 1,000 people tested, 70 were positive. Even with a false positive rate of 0.8%, seven of those would be false positives, but 63 would be true positives - the vast majority.

So the daily case count is not being skewed significantly by false positives. There will also be some false negatives, meaning that some people who actually have Covid are not being counted.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Did you research any of the claims before posting them?

I read several of the links.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I read several of the links.

Did you fact-check any of them?  If you went into court without fact-checking claims or looking at potential objections for them, would you see yourself as a good lawyer?  Just asking given you are setting up the idea this is a legal context.