Coronavirus **personal experiences** thread

Off-topic Chatter
5841

The information coming from Dr. Yeadon about the rate of false positive Covid-19 tests would be very interesting, if Yeadon was talking about something happening in the real world, and if he didn’t misrepresent the figures he took from the source of his false beliefs, and if the source of his false beliefs wasn’t also wrong. However, Yeadon wasn’t talking about anything happening in the real world, and he did misrepresent the figures coming from an Oxford Professor of Medicine, and the professor (the source of Yeadon’s misunderstanding) was also very wrong in not clarifying that his remarks on this subject don’t apply to what is actually happening in the real world.

The reasons are explained here

Summary: The Oxford professor claimed that the false positive rate in the UK was as high as 50. Not almost 100. Yeadon took that statement and exaggerated what the professor said, claiming the false positive rate is 90%. Unfortunately, both the professor and Yeadon were not talking about anything that is really happening, either in the UK or the US.

If the prevalence of the virus in the group being tested is as low as is assumed by the professor (0.11), and subsequently assumed by Yeadon in repeating the professor’s claim, of course the false positive rate will be very high. That’s the way statistics work. However, the 0.11 assumption of prevalence behind the professor’s conclusion was the prevalence of the virus in the entire UK population. But that is not the group being tested. The group being tested in reality is comprised almost entirely of people with symptoms - so the prevalence of the virus in the group being tested is actually much higher, and the false positive rate is actually very low.

We also have other evidence confirming that the false positive test rate is very low. For example, the number of positive tests as a percentage of the whole is growing. And the numbers are not spiking uniformly across the entire country, in the UK or the USA. So the increases in positive tests are not being caused by error. Unfortunately, publication and widespread promoting of false and/or misleading information about testing, like Yeadon’s nonsense, will only result in more distrust of testing, and the medical and scientific community, and that will only make things worse for all of us.

As for Yeadon’s comments about he virus being “over,” that is contrary to the information coming from the vast majority of health experts, epidemiologists, and others with expertise in the relevant fields. I would ask Dr. Yeadon: if the virus is over, why are more people dying of the virus in quite a few states in the USA? Why have the numbers gone up in several European countries? Why are we still dealing with a daily confirmed death rate from the virus of around 1,000, and often over 1,000, even in the past few weeks?

5842

That is really interesting how the number and percentage of fatalities is so much lower now. i’ve wondered about that and what it means. Like the Dr. lady was saying that some folks have a higher basic immunity level and don’t have bad symptoms. Maybe the folks with a very low base immunity level were exposed and died early on, and now the remaining people are “stronger” going forward.

Maybe the medical treatments have improved based upon the early experience and they know how to treat it quicker and more effectively than when it was an unknown surprise that seemed to overwhelm the medical facilities.

The lower death rate in the countries that he viewed is certainly good news

5843

Face masks do reduce the spread of Covid-19 from the wearer to others, and also provide some protection for the wearer, as well. See, e.g.,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191114/

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/new-study-highlights-new-evidence-that-masks-prevent-coronavirus-spread/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298

5844

Wellp, after that Pfizer pfiasco known as “Operation Infinite Walrus”, I don’t think I’d trust ’em worth a damn.

5845

Yes, what you say is true, so far as it goes. Masks do reduce the spread from the wearer to others, but not by as great a magnitude as most mask wearers imagine. And they provide some protection for the wearer, provided the wearer manages to avoid contaminating the mask during use (which is IMO very difficult to avoid).

It is interesting to note that Fauci said in early March,

Granted, Fauci said this in part because he felt motivated to keep people from using up a limited mask supply which was needed for medical personnel. But we can draw a couple of points from this nonetheless. First, Fauci admits that masks’ efficacy is notably imperfect; nevertheless, many people prefer to ignore this fact and they both practice and regard mask wearing with something approaching a religious fervor (note incidents of violence against non-wearers). Second, Fauci was willing to sacrifice the safety of individuals for the sake of an agenda (the agenda being to reduce demand for masks), allegedly on the hypothesis that it would save more lives in the long run to have the masks in hospital settings. After all, he said that even in the middle of an outbreak, mask wearing is not recommended. Third, Fauci was willing to either lie or exaggerate for the sake of an agenda, which raises the question of how we can trust Fauci since we cannot know if he is prevaricating more since that time for the sake of some agenda (known to him but not to us); he was willing to say that mask wearing is not advised in the middle of an outbreak, yet beginning a couple of weeks later (and continuing to this day) Fauci has been saying the exact opposite, so Fauci is on record as an untrustworthy source.

5846

Doesn’t all of this assume that the test is fundamentally giving an accurate result? The PCR test is the most prevalent type; it tries to detect a small strand that is present in SARS-COV-2 (by an amplification method), but the same small strand is present in some other coronaviruses (which have been around for a long time and cause colds), so the test detects far more than the virus in question. Moreover, the strand being detected can be long dead and inactive, yet the person whose test comes back ‘positive’ is treated as though he is currently infected even though he isn’t. To analogize, it’s like this test looks for a needle in a haystack by finding a shard of what might have been a needle and replicating it to a detectable level; in the process it picks up pieces of needles, plus bobby pins and safety pins also. The most prevalent testing method is demonstrably flawed, and numerous anecdotal incidents of false positives have been recorded.

5847

Hi everyone, the political and controversial discussions here need to stop. I don’t want to close this thread, as there are still some non-controversial aspects of this topic that affect us all. However, I will have to close it if the rules aren’t followed.

Please understand that I am not picking sides on any of the issues at stake. I respect everyone’s individual right to form their own opinions and conclusions, but I also require that you not share them here with a view to peace for the forum. Thanks in advance for making the necessary changes.

5848

OK. It stands to reason that any post touching on factual issues on any topic can be controversial to somebody. So, it seems all of those posts violate the rules. I have to assume that responding to any statements in such posts also violates the rules. Accordingly, I will no longer post any responses to false or misleading information of any kind posted here. I want to follow the rules.

5849

This is one of currently two threads about highly polarizing political topics. Both should be closed.

5850

Thanks for self moderating. And yes, my moderation here on BLF has always given priority to preventing or ending disputes rather than promoting the dissemination of facts. Even in on-topic threads about flashlights I have intervened many times when people start arguing about chemistry and physics issues and the interpretation of facts.

Basically, this thread is allowed to exist so that members can post their personal experiences, either because they got sick or because lockdown is affecting them in some way. I’ve also found a lot of the scientific article links to be very interesting and helpful. Just please avoid commentaries that relate the articles to your interpretation of the facts, and avoid giving the impression of trying to run a propaganda / indoctrination campaign.

What’s the other one?

5851

Well that’s a shame and will be a big loss. You have a great analytical mind and the ability to distill the meaning and essence of questionable information in a timely manner, and the ability to write and express factual evaluations and opinions in a non-controversial manner and without resorting to personal attacks. That is a rare talent.

It is definitely worth investigating what is being done in treatments and how it is that some countries have better fatality rates from the covid.

5852

sb56637: the scientific article links violate the rules as you described them. The information in the articles is disputed, no matter where the information comes from. It is therefore controversial and violates the rules.

You have also stated that posting information that can be controversial violates the rules. Therefore, any information that can possibly be disputed violates the rules, whether it is eventually disputed in this thread or not.

5853

What kb said— :+1:

5854

It definitely is, but not on a flashlight forum.

5855

Very kind of you to say. I have learned a lot from your posts, and believe you’ve made more positive contributions to this thread than I can count. Take care of yourself. :slight_smile:

5856

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. We go through spells where people simply post links that could be of interest, and it hasn’t generated controversy. Trouble comes when people start pontificating and promoting their interpretations of what is fact and what is false. So there’s no need to throw out the baby with the bath water, but everyone needs to be more careful to keep their opinions (and controversial facts) to themselves and not use BLF as a soapbox.

5857

Thanks - generous of you to say that. I always learn from and appreciate your posts. Take care. :slight_smile:

5858

Me too. Djozz was another one that was good for technical explanations but I think he gave up on this thread.

5859

Thanks very much. I believe you’ve contributed a lot more than I have, and in a very positive way! Take care. :slight_smile:

5860

a personal story about corona time

I live alone, and my adult children and 6 month old grandson, that I have never met because of corona, are planning to visit me in two weeks. I have not been willing to travel. Im afraid of airport contamination.

They are coming, by car, from a heavily infected state, 1000 miles away. They are required to self quarantine for 14 days, unless they pass a corona test.

My first thoughts were about how to organize my home to house them all. I wanted to save them money, and to enjoy our time together as a family.

We all have been tested, negative, but I dont trust the test is accurate for non symptomatic people. Plus I dont trust a test to pick up an infection that is less than 5 days old. So getting tested upon arrival, or a day before, leaves a lot of doubt.

I have adjusted my expectations of a family gathering.
They will get a motel. And we will wear masks when we meet to visit, outdoors.

Im having trouble adapting to the idea that I wont be able to hug my family. But I would rather see them, in masks, at social distance, than to cancel the visit.

Facemasks and social distancing are my new corona reality.