COVID BOMBSHELL: HERD IMMUNITY BY APRIL

Volkscrock;
COVID BOMBSHELL: HERD IMMUNITY BY APRIL
Click to expand...


man-horns-concept-female-infidelity-man-horns-concept-female-infidelity-hipster-cuckold-107067474.jpg


8C7242A8-4724-41D1-90FF-5FE948011B52.jpeg





Haw, haw.................................haw.
 
domer76 said:
You chronically lie. No NYT article made the claim. Nor has anyone.

Except you halfwitted liars.

Educate yourself, idiot. If that’s possible.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/lab/fda-calculator.pdf

https://www.icd10monitor.com/false-positives-in-pcr-tests-for-covid-19/amp

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28K2FR
Click to expand...

I know what the NYT said and I understand there’s no distinction between detecting insufficient viral particles to produce an infection and a false positive.

You can save your links.
 
Darth Omar said:
I know what the NYT said and I understand there’s no distinction between detecting insufficient viral particles to produce an infection and a false positive.

You can save your links.
Click to expand...

:lolup:

I can’t fix your stupid, pal. I can just allow you to demonstrate it.
 
I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A proper cutoff would be somewhere between 30-35 cycles. That would mean the amount of viral DNA in the sample would have to be 100 to 1,000 times higher to generate a positive result. The lab identified 794 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles. With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30. In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. -

:lolup:
 
DEMOCRAT domer76 said:
I read that article way back when. I’m past my limit for the month so I can’t open it now. Your comprehension skills suck. What it DID say was: “Up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus”. The article, however, does not say the PCR tests gave a ‘false positive’ result by incorrectly detecting the virus in people who are not infected. Instead, it questions whether the test should be used to determine how infectious a person is after they have contracted COVID-19. Illiterate fucking morons.
Click to expand...

:lolup:

Loser.

:rofl2:
 
Legion said:
:lolup:


Up to 90 percent of the people who receive a positive test are carrying so little virus that they probably aren’t contagious.

This is because testing used something called a PCR test.

In this test, a test sample is run through a machine that amplifies any DNA particles found in it. Each time you run the sample through the machine you amplify the DNA a bit more.

•In the current PCR testing, they run that sample through 40 times.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times.

If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

• The standard for these tests is 30-35 cycles.

•By cycling to 40 times, it means we have positive infection counts that are about 10 times higher than they really are.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said

Epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told The Times that a proper cutoff would be somewhere between 30-35 cycles. That would mean the amount of viral DNA in the sample would have to be 100 to 1,000 times higher to generate a positive result.

So this is, let's go with the vernacular, part of the "hoax".

We've been fed data that infectious cases are currently at 6.04 million when, because of the way this test is being done, may actually only be a little over 600,000.

But it may be even lower:

Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request.

In July, the lab identified 794 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.

With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.

The virus is most definitely real. The actual case count ... not so much.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Loser.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

I like to know the explanation as to *why* the cycle thresholds weren’t included in the PCR lab reports. If a lab report on routine blood work didn’t include ‘information that is just a tad relevant’ it would be sent back to the lab to be rerun.

And this was going on in a fricking pandemic. It was only until nearly a year into it that the WHO said ‘oh crap, we might have an issue here. We’d better alert practitioners about this’.

Wtf? Think of the economic costs associated with this. How many people were forced to quarantine and lost work because they had their PCR test cycled too many times. How many asymptomatic cases weren’t really ‘cases’ and led to restaurants being shutdown? How many of the Covid deaths were false positive?

It’s insane.
 
Darth Omar said:
See, I allow the reader to connect the dots lol.
Click to expand...

Remember the beginning? Remember the politically-motivated panic pushed by the DEMOCRAT-dominated covidactnow bunch that was based on "models" and "projections" masquerading as "Science™"?

News reporters, social media oligarchs and armchair virologists yammered away that you should hunker down at home or grandma would die.

That’s what the narrative was in the beginning, and to this day, leftists believe it. Of course, in very short order, the left realized lockdowns could be a very useful tool in destroying the Trump economy that could result in his re-election.
 
Lionfish said:
You are correct and to counter that fact radio talking head idiots like tom hartmann are beating the drum to stir up america with a NEW variant of the China virus. MORE DEADLY, MORE CONTAGIOUS.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Fuck them.
Click to expand...

Yes, by all means, ignore the data, don't wear a mask in public, give everyone you know a big hug and kiss and get out there an mingle. Have fun while you can.
 
Darth Omar said:
I like to know the explanation as to *why* the cycle thresholds weren’t included in the PCR lab reports. If a lab report on routine blood work didn’t include ‘information that is just a tad relevant’ it would be sent back to the lab to be rerun.

And this was going on in a fricking pandemic. It was only until nearly a year into it that the WHO said ‘oh crap, we might have an issue here. We’d better alert practitioners about this’.

Wtf? Think of the economic costs associated with this. How many people were forced to quarantine and lost work because they had their PCR test cycled too many times. How many asymptomatic cases weren’t really ‘cases’ and led to restaurants being shutdown? How many of the Covid deaths were false positive?

It’s insane.
Click to expand...

500,000 deaths in the US. At least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top