Coronavirus

Riverhead Towns positivity rate has climbed to over 5% & is rising, Peconic Bay Hospital is seeing an increase in virus related admissions, & the towns Business Improvement District wants to have a large fireworks display on the riverfront New Years Eve. What am I missing here.
John
 
129261867_1581320082069759_7814936077324040749_n.jpg
 
TonySmjc said:
How can something listed as
Scientist believe and words like
Evidence strongly suggest
Be listed as facts

aren’t facts indisputable
Concrete and provable beyond doubt
Click to expand...
Are you looking for facts along the line of "sunrise in the east, sunset in the west"? Would that help you?
 
wader said:
us.yahoo.com

Fox News’ Juan Williams Tests Positive for COVID-19

Fox News host Juan Williams has tested positive for COVID-19 and is currently in quarantine, The Daily Beast has confirmed. Williams had filmed alongside his co-hosts on The Five as recently as Wednesday. The New York Times was the first to report on the liberal Fox News star's diagnosis.“I’m...
us.yahoo.com us.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Oh, hope he recovers quickly...I like Juan, he gets so mad arguing with those fat heads on the Five.

The only thing I dont like about Juan is he roots for a football team that does not have a name.
 
Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an important metric by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions about how infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be. However, as JustTheNews reports, health departments across the country are failing to collect that data.

Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:

1. Experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that conclude:“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus."
2. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: “With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT. “And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “
3. An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
4. A new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test "positives" are not "cases" since the virus cannot be cultured, it's dead. And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.
5. PCR is not testing for disease, it's testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really "positives" in any clinical sense, since it cannot make you or anyone else sick
Click to expand...
 
This is why I have been saying the PCR testing is BS and reports too many false positives or more accurately non-clinical positives.
The ct threshold jacks up the case count.

you can read the links above from the NYT and other medical bodies.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
dsedy said:
This is why I have been saying the PCR testing is BS and reports too many false positives or more accurately non-clinical positives.
The ct threshold jacks up the case count.

you can read the links above from the NYT and other medical bodies.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
Click to expand...
Since the "published papers" cited in the website you mention are NOT peer reviewed, but websites that anyone can "publish" to, there's limited scientific value to this argument. The Clinical Infectious Diseases Correspondence is just that, a letter to the Editor that is not reviewed. However the data are interesting, as it has always been a difficult exercise to equate PCR Cycle Thresholds (Ct) to infectivity.

AAMOF I don't know of ANY instance where the smallest Ct has been resolved to determine the "infectious dose" for ANY virus. "Cutoff" determinations for highly dangerous viruses like COVID-19, HIV, HBV, HCV, etc. are always done on the side of caution. Higher number of cycles with the absence of viral nucleic acids are highly suggestive the person is not infected/infectious. You have to ask yourself this, would you like a unit of blood that has some HIV RNA detected in it after 25 cycles, 30 cycles, 35 cycles, 40 cycles? I sure as hell wouldn't...

And there is a gross error in the text of the article, "And this same test is used for hospitalizations"... NOBODY gets admitted to the hospital solely on a PCR positive result with no extreme and life threatening clinical symptoms. If they did that, the hospitals would have been chock full months ago. All states report "New Positives as determined with PCR, Resolved Patients, Hospitalized Patients Patients in the ICU and Patients on Ventilators. As you go down the last three categories on that list are the smallest, and no where near the "New Positives" number.

If these authors would like to better defend their treatise that high Cts do not correlate to infectivity, a prospective studies following folks with high Cts over a couple of months would answer the question. They could track RT-PCR Cts over that time from swabs, Viral Antigen from swabs, and IgG and IgM results from blood samples, along with basic clinical symptoms. When all these test results are correlated you can start to have a true clinical picture of whether or not the higher Cts are irrelevant from a clinical perspective. Nothing in this package shows these type of data.
 
Roccus7 said:
Interesting and informative graphic from the NYTimes that emphasizes that there is no "One size fits all" panacea here...

View attachment 27891
Click to expand...
Very interesting way to show it. It's like everything in life, do what you can to keep the risk level as low as possible with the tools available. The risk, getting sick, and what I put at the top of my concern list, spreading it unknowingly. The reward, not getting sick and not spreading it any further.
 
I knew this masks don't work nonsense sounded familiar:

The Star Trek Enterprise arrives at Ardana to take on a shipment of zenite.

Kirk and Spock learn Ardanan society is divided between the Troglytes, who perform all physical labor, and city-dwellers who live in the cloud city of Stratos.

McCoy reports that unprocessed zenite emits an odorless, invisible gas which diminishes mental capacity and heightens emotions. Kirk offers special masks that filter the zenite gas. Vanna, a Troglyte rebel is skeptical, because she cannot see the gas. Eventually she acknowledges that she cannot see air either, but that lack of air will kill her.

Plasus has grudgingly allowed the distribution of the filter masks, and Vanna declares that her people's struggle for equality will continue.
 
Roccus7 said:
Since the "published papers" cited in the website you mention are NOT peer reviewed, but websites that anyone can "publish" to, there's limited scientific value to this argument. The Clinical Infectious Diseases Correspondence is just that, a letter to the Editor that is not reviewed. However the data are interesting, as it has always been a difficult exercise to equate PCR Cycle Thresholds (Ct) to infectivity.

AAMOF I don't know of ANY instance where the smallest Ct has been resolved to determine the "infectious dose" for ANY virus. "Cutoff" determinations for highly dangerous viruses like COVID-19, HIV, HBV, HCV, etc. are always done on the side of caution. Higher number of cycles with the absence of viral nucleic acids are highly suggestive the person is not infected/infectious. You have to ask yourself this, would you like a unit of blood that has some HIV RNA detected in it after 25 cycles, 30 cycles, 35 cycles, 40 cycles? I sure as hell wouldn't...

And there is a gross error in the text of the article, "And this same test is used for hospitalizations"... NOBODY gets admitted to the hospital solely on a PCR positive result with no extreme and life threatening clinical symptoms. If they did that, the hospitals would have been chock full months ago. All states report "New Positives as determined with PCR, Resolved Patients, Hospitalized Patients Patients in the ICU and Patients on Ventilators. As you go down the last three categories on that list are the smallest, and no where near the "New Positives" number.

If these authors would like to better defend their treatise that high Cts do not correlate to infectivity, a prospective studies following folks with high Cts over a couple of months would answer the question. They could track RT-PCR Cts over that time from swabs, Viral Antigen from swabs, and IgG and IgM results from blood samples, along with basic clinical symptoms. When all these test results are correlated you can start to have a true clinical picture of whether or not the higher Cts are irrelevant from a clinical perspective. Nothing in this package shows these type of data.
Click to expand...


You might find this interesting as well. Its' a 14 minute segment of interviews with some pretty heavy hitters in the medical field. (former scientific advisor at Pfizer, the creator of the PCR test, expert on PCR administration) etc....
The esteemed Dr. Fauci, at about 5 minutes in and 12 minutes in. To paraphrase : a cycle threshold of more than 35 the chances of being replication competent (infectious) are minuscule........ they are dead nucleotides period....."

This is a really good segment.

 
TonySmjc said:
How can something listed as
Scientist believe and words like
Evidence strongly suggest
Be listed as facts

aren’t facts indisputable
Concrete and provable beyond doubt
Click to expand...
That's how scientists speak.
Evolution is a theory that is well supported by evidence, but not necessarily the full picture.
Gravity and magnetism are theories that are well supported with evidence, until/unless a better theory comes along, like relativity and quantum mechanics.
Scientists believe that planes can fly, beyond a "reasonable" doubt, but sometimes they fall from the sky and the explanation why is very complicated.
We send people to the electric chair based on "the evidence strongly suggests."
Sometimes its the best you can do.
Only "faith" can be so rock solid, because it is not based on anything real and is not subject to testing.
 
📱 Fish Smarter with the NYAngler App!
Launch Now

Members online

Total: 240 (members: 8, guests: 232)

Fishing Reports

Latest posts

Latest articles

Back
Top