Reason To Take Vaccine

[Scott777]

No Scott. 4.3% is 4.3 in 100. The 1000 is an example where 4.3% is 43. It could be 10000 when it would be 430.

Exactly correct.  So what is wrong?

[Streetwalker]

43 , 23 , 100take away the power of 16 , what the fecks going on ?

All I want to know is when's the pub open ?


Keep it under your hat but someone told me under oath and on the punishment of death that if we all have the vaccine , and heres the weird bit , they could be open by the summer . Dont quote ,its just a rumour .

[grumzed]

Yes, that's not in dispute.  The rate of false positives is 4.3% of 1000, which is 43.  That means there will be 43 false positives.  So if you get 100 positive results, the 43 false positives MUST be subtracted from the 100.

No Scott. 4.3% is 4.3 in 100. The 1000 is an example where 4.3% is 43. It could be 10000 when it would be 430.

[Scott777]

Nah, John is right. 43 out of a 1000 is 4.3%, not 43%. You have put the decimal point in the wrong place.

Yes, that's not in dispute.  The rate of false positives is 4.3% of 1000, which is 43.  That means there will be 43 false positives.  So if you get 100 positive results, the 43 false positives MUST be subtracted from the 100.

[Borchester]

I'm sure it was correct.  Why would you need to statistically adjust anything?  It's 43 false positives, out of 100 positive results.

Nah, John is right. 43 out of a 1000 is 4.3%, not 43%. You have put the decimal point in the wrong place.

Personally, I could never see the point of the decimal system. It is almost a poetry free zone and the only reason I can remember the size of a picosecond is because a pica is 12 points.

Anyway, stay away from the medics and their pills and procedures. Good folk, but I laid out enough of their mistakes when I worked in the morgue at Guys Hospital to be lairy of their well meaning cack handedness.

[Scott777]

I think your maths went a bit haywire there.


A false positive test rate of 4.3% is indeed 43 in a 1000, making the statistically adjusted actual rate for 100 positives 100 - 4.3 (95.7) not 100-43 (57)

I'm sure it was correct.  Why would you need to statistically adjust anything?  It's 43 false positives, out of 100 positive results.

[johnofgwent]

What do you mean "when the case numbers are large"?  By your own figures, the false positives range from 0.8% to 4.3%.  If it's 4.3%, then you must assume 43 in every 1000 will be false positives, which means if you get 100 positives, you need to subtract 43 to get the true positives, which is 57.  So tell me when was the last time there were so many positives that this would not make much difference?  If you change the CT, you can get anything you like, so you cannot say it is not a factor that could make it unreliable.

The NHS gets overwhelmed nearly every year, so were vaccines the solution?  I am not suggesting that the policies of nearly all the world's governments (and their medics) are wrong.  I said you cannot use cases to measure if policy has worked, and you don't need to, if there is no evidence of a deadly epidemic, but you continue to ignore the total deaths in 2020.

I think your maths went a bit haywire there.


A false positive test rate of 4.3% is indeed 43 in a 1000, making the statistically adjusted actual rate for 100 positives 100 - 4.3 (95.7) not 100-43 (57)

[Scott777]

You see, this is where we differ. There are not "many factors that make it (the PCR test) unreliable" when the case numbers are large unless you totally disagree with the false positive figure for the PCR test. The lateral flow test is not one used to determine the figures used but only as a quick test to give a quick result where circumstances permit. You are also neglecting the important issue of preventing the NHS getting overwhelmed, even if you have a bizarre belief that the deaths were not COVID but seasonal flu.

I think it is absolutely clear that policy has affected the infection rates, not just in the UK but figures from elsewhere in the world. You are really suggesting that the policies of nearly all the world's governments (and their medics) are wrong but you and people like Bolsonaro and Donald Trump are right.

You see, this is where we differ. There are not "many factors that make it (the PCR test) unreliable" when the case numbers are large unless you totally disagree with the false positive figure for the PCR test. The lateral flow test is not one used to determine the figures used but only as a quick test to give a quick result where circumstances permit. You are also neglecting the important issue of preventing the NHS getting overwhelmed, even if you have a bizarre belief that the deaths were not COVID but seasonal flu.

I think it is absolutely clear that policy has affected the infection rates, not just in the UK but figures from elsewhere in the world. You are really suggesting that the policies of nearly all the world's governments (and their medics) are wrong but you and people like Bolsonaro and Donald Trump are right.

What do you mean "when the case numbers are large"?  By your own figures, the false positives range from 0.8% to 4.3%.  If it's 4.3%, then you must assume 43 in every 1000 will be false positives, which means if you get 100 positives, you need to subtract 43 to get the true positives, which is 57.  So tell me when was the last time there were so many positives that this would not make much difference?  If you change the CT, you can get anything you like, so you cannot say it is not a factor that could make it unreliable.

The NHS gets overwhelmed nearly every year, so were vaccines the solution?  I am not suggesting that the policies of nearly all the world's governments (and their medics) are wrong.  I said you cannot use cases to measure if policy has worked, and you don't need to, if there is no evidence of a deadly epidemic, but you continue to ignore the total deaths in 2020.

[grumzed]

To be precise, when the virus is widespread, many of the figures may be genuine Covid, but the true figure is likely to be much less than the official figure.

I don't agree with graphs showing the rises and falls of Covid deaths, because the actual figure is probably much lower, and there are many factors that make it unreliable: it depends on how much testing you do, the cycle threshold, whether it's PCR or lateral flow, and how deaths are recorded.  Too many factors make the data of little use.

The only reliable figure is total deaths (or deaths from exclusively respiratory illness, if that's available).  Therefore, you cannot make any assumptions about how policy has affected the virus.  Total UK deaths were unremarkable in 2020.  If you cannot establish a problem, why would need to vaccinate everyone?

You see, this is where we differ. There are not "many factors that make it (the PCR test) unreliable" when the case numbers are large unless you totally disagree with the false positive figure for the PCR test. The lateral flow test is not one used to determine the figures used but only as a quick test to give a quick result where circumstances permit. You are also neglecting the important issue of preventing the NHS getting overwhelmed, even if you have a bizarre belief that the deaths were not COVID but seasonal flu.

I think it is absolutely clear that policy has affected the infection rates, not just in the UK but figures from elsewhere in the world. You are really suggesting that the policies of nearly all the world's governments (and their medics) are wrong but you and people like Bolsonaro and Donald Trump are right.

[Scott777]

Scott, I see we actually both agree (and with Barry) on the meaning of the false positive figure. Where this figure starts to be problematic is when the number of Covid cases fall to a low level (as they have now). So when someone dies and it is reported to be "within 28 days of a positive Covid test" this becomes less reliable as an indicator that the cause of death was due to Covid. When the levels of Covid were high then this cause of death is reliable. I assume we agree on this.

I assume that you would agree that the graphs showing the rises and falls of Covid deaths is largely correct and that they track well with government policy in controlling the virus via the measures they have taken. The problem with controlling this situation is in the exponential growth in numbers when the virus is unchecked by relaxation in the rules and in the delay between catching the disease and in displaying symptoms. The recent growh of infections was due to the relaxation in the lockdowns at Xmas and New Year. The only solution to this is mass vaccinations, particularly before the virus stumbles upon a mutation that evades the vaccines.

I am old enough to remember the polio epidemic and the lifelong disabilities that resulted from it (if it did not kill you) and having the series of injections (prior to super sharp needles) - later replaced by sugar lumps which were much better. This disease was thankfully eliminated by that program. This disease is much harder to eliminate but at least it needs to be brought under control and contained.

To be precise, when the virus is widespread, many of the figures may be genuine Covid, but the true figure is likely to be much less than the official figure.

I don't agree with graphs showing the rises and falls of Covid deaths, because the actual figure is probably much lower, and there are many factors that make it unreliable: it depends on how much testing you do, the cycle threshold, whether it's PCR or lateral flow, and how deaths are recorded.  Too many factors make the data of little use.

The only reliable figure is total deaths (or deaths from exclusively respiratory illness, if that's available).  Therefore, you cannot make any assumptions about how policy has affected the virus.  Total UK deaths were unremarkable in 2020.  If you cannot establish a problem, why would need to vaccinate everyone?

[Scott777]

Extraordinary claims - the global medical, scientific, and political community are lying to us - requires extraordinary evidence.
Only yesterday another 231 people in the UK died as a result of covid,

Except for all the medics, doctors, scientists who disagree with you.  🤣
Or 231 died of flu, and the tests were wrong.

[grumzed]

Scott, I see we actually both agree (and with Barry) on the meaning of the false positive figure. Where this figure starts to be problematic is when the number of Covid cases fall to a low level (as they have now). So when someone dies and it is reported to be "within 28 days of a positive Covid test" this becomes less reliable as an indicator that the cause of death was due to Covid. When the levels of Covid were high then this cause of death is reliable. I assume we agree on this.

I assume that you would agree that the graphs showing the rises and falls of Covid deaths is largely correct and that they track well with government policy in controlling the virus via the measures they have taken. The problem with controlling this situation is in the exponential growth in numbers when the virus is unchecked by relaxation in the rules and in the delay between catching the disease and in displaying symptoms. The recent growh of infections was due to the relaxation in the lockdowns at Xmas and New Year. The only solution to this is mass vaccinations, particularly before the virus stumbles upon a mutation that evades the vaccines.

I am old enough to remember the polio epidemic and the lifelong disabilities that resulted from it (if it did not kill you) and having the series of injections (prior to super sharp needles) - later replaced by sugar lumps which were much better. This disease was thankfully eliminated by that program. This disease is much harder to eliminate but at least it needs to be brought under control and contained.

[srb7677]

I'm not a flat earther, and I do try to avoid calling other posters silly names.
I notice you cherry picked a line from my post to argue your point.However you failed to address what I had based my assertion upon:Because you can't, can you?

124,000 people are dead, including another 231 yesterday with covid on their death certificates. Do you think doctors are lying? Or do you think they are mistaken, and less knowledgeable than you?

Either way, such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince us we are being lied to. In it's absence you are just another flat earther.

[Barry]

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.

I'm not a flat earther, and I do try to avoid calling other posters silly names.
I notice you cherry picked a line from my post to argue your point.

This means the epidemic is over in this country.

However you failed to address what I had based my assertion upon:

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.

Because you can't, can you?

[srb7677]

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.  🤣

Well it is clearly not where you got your non-existent evidence, because that planet in your drawing is clearly not earth, nor is it flat.

Extraordinary claims - the global medical, scientific, and political community are lying to us - requires extraordinary evidence. You have not a shred. What evidence do you have that doctors and nurses, scientists and the media are all lying to us? And what is their motive? You have nothing but a stupid, non-evidenced conspiracy theory.

Only yesterday another 231 people in the UK died as a result of covid, bringing the UK total so far to 124,797. Or did all those people just disappear into a puff of omnipotent smoke? Or die of something else entirely and all the doctors in the country are illegally lying on death certificates? Because if the latter you really do need to provide solid evidence of that or you are just going to look stupid.

Next time you have mushrooms with your lunch I would suggest you avoid the magic variety. They are seriously messing with your logic.