Reason To Take Vaccine

[Scott777]

You see, this is your problem, a lack of basic understanding of logic, as well as language and evidence.  I don't need to prove a negative.  I don't make claims that aliens have landed, and ask you to prove they haven't.

You still haven't defined 'covid death' and continue to assume it means something of value, refuse to accept that it is based on unreliable tests, refuse to provide evidence that the tests are reliable, and keep going round in your lunatic circles.

Oh look, I've found where you get your evidence from.  This is a photo I took of the people who gave it to you.  Look, it's real, because I drew it.  🤣

[srb7677]

Go ahead then, stop guffing, and provide this remarkable evidence that you claim is agreed by most of the medical and scientific community.

I have provided evidence of the covid death figures already but you chose to ignore it as government propaganda. And where is your evidence that the whole thing is bollocks? You havent provided anything the least bit convincing. You flat earthers never can.

[Scott777]

Clearly you prefer to believe a few idiots on the web and a handful of mavericks to most of the medical and scientific community.

Go ahead then, stop guffing, and provide this remarkable evidence that you claim is agreed by most of the medical and scientific community.

[srb7677]

And yet no one has provided a shred of evidence that they are dying from 'it' instead of flu, other diseases and morbidities.  You can carry on with your guff as much as you like, but that won't make it true.  But if you're so worried, put on your foil hat.

You can carry on with your guff as much as you like, but that won't make it true.

Clearly you prefer to believe a few idiots on the web and a handful of mavericks to most of the medical and scientific community. Is that actually sensible? I think not. It is the thinking of a flat earther conspiracy theorist.

[Scott777]

Nonsense. Hundreds of people are still dying from it every day.

And yet no one has provided a shred of evidence that they are dying from 'it' instead of flu, other diseases and morbidities.  You can carry on with your guff as much as you like, but that won't make it true.  But if you're so worried, put on your foil hat.

[srb7677]

This means the epidemic is over in this country.

Nonsense. Hundreds of people are still dying from it every day.

You flat earthers are welcome to bury your head in the sand and live in your own parallel universe bubble. Just leave the rest of us to get on with reality.

[Scott777]

No it doesn't. It is showing an estimate for the percentage of the number of positive test results that turn out to be incorrect. So if you test a number of people and 1000 are positive for the virus then between 8 and 43 of those maybe wrongly given as positive. The percentage of people who have the virus does not change this measure of the effectiveness of the test.

Barry is correct.  The false positive rate (which is the inverse percentage of the specificity) is the proportion of the total tests, not the proportion of the positives, which are false positive.
If you test 5,472,150 people with 0.8% false positive, you expect to get 43,777 false positives, which is all of the positives (41,225), i.e. there are 0 true positives.

[grumzed]

That means virtually all the current positive tests are false positives.

No it doesn't. It is showing an estimate for the percentage of the number of positive test results that turn out to be incorrect. So if you test a number of people and 1000 are positive for the virus then between 8 and 43 of those maybe wrongly given as positive. The percentage of people who have the virus does not change this measure of the effectiveness of the test.

[Scott777]

How about Office for national statistics then:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/falsepositivityrateofthecovid19pcrtest

I cannot find the page, but this was screenshotted last year:

[Barry]

No tests are perfect but the PCR test is considered the best for a simply administered test. It looks for the viral material directly. It's false positivity rate is estimated at between 0.8% and 4.3% (reported by Office of National Statistics in October 2020).

That means virtually all the current positive tests are false positives.
Yesterday 4,712 positive of 805,744 tests is about 0.6%
In the last week, 41,225 of 5,472,150 is about 0.75%

I think you just highlighted the problem with the current case rate. This means the epidemic is over in this country.

[Scott777]

How about Office for national statistics then:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/falsepositivityrateofthecovid19pcrtest

You seem to have misread the info, although to be fair, the ONS have provided a confusing account.  The FOI question included the line "This rate of false positives PCR test results has been estimated at between 0.8% and 4.3%." 
This is not the ONS answer.

The ONS answer is:

"The results show that when we consider that the sensitivity of the test could lie between 85% and 95% (with around 95% probability) and specificity is above 99.9%, the prevalence rate would be slightly higher but still very close to the main estimate we publish in our weekly bulletin."

However, with a specificity of 99.91%, the false positives are still far too high for the result to be meaningful.  I can try to find the evidence of this, if you like.

[grumzed]

How about Office for national statistics then:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/falsepositivityrateofthecovid19pcrtest

[Scott777]

Scott, you are right that Raab referred 7% accuracy when interviewed once. It was a mistake (he mis-spoke in an impromptu interview), as explained in this reference here:-

https://fullfact.org/online/dominic-raab-93-percent/

No tests are perfect but the PCR test is considered the best for a simply administered test. It looks for the viral material directly. It's false positivity rate is estimated at between 0.8% and 4.3% (reported by Office of National Statistics in October 2020).

I'm not interested in Fullfact, which is not an authority on the facts.  So which part did Raab get wrong?  Is it the 7% accuracy, which Boris also said on video?  And I would love to look at this ONS claim, becasue I have seen the ONS provide no accurate figure on the specificity of the test.

[grumzed]

Scott, you are right that Raab referred 7% accuracy when interviewed once. It was a mistake (he mis-spoke in an impromptu interview), as explained in this reference here:-

https://fullfact.org/online/dominic-raab-93-percent/

No tests are perfect but the PCR test is considered the best for a simply administered test. It looks for the viral material directly. It's false positivity rate is estimated at between 0.8% and 4.3% (reported by Office of National Statistics in October 2020).

[Scott777]

Scott, the symptoms of Covid are similar to flu but not identical and generally more severe. The PCR test is very, very reliable when a patient has a high viral load, which they will have if they die from it!! And they only tend to give a false negative result if a patient has little or no symptoms. They also do blood tests on some and analysis to not only show that it is a COVID infection but also to find out which mutated variant it is. But if you don't believe the information that is given out by the government, medical profession and from many countries, you won't believe anything I say either, so discussing it seems a waste of time.

No, the symptoms of Covid are not generally more severe.  The symptoms don't need to be identical, because diagnosis is not based on all symptoms.  And false negatives are not the big problem, it is false positives that are.  Many many people may have viral particles that would give a false positive if a high CT is used over many tests.  Nothing here contradicts the government.  Boris and Raab both admitted PCR is only 7% accurate, and Raab said the false positives are very high, so what info are you saying I don't believe?  It is indeed a waste of time if you don't explain what I have said that is incorrect, and you can't back it up with any evidence.