Yesterday UK had highest number of new covid cases of any country.

[Scott777]

What not heard the vaccine makes you magnetic or that it's a plot by Bill Gates to inject a bar code in to you amongst many other lunatic theories.

How about threatening nhs staff and harassing them or berating and harassing  kids of school age as they go into take a vaccine they have chosen to have?

Indeed, there are a some theories which may not have any substance, but I just wouldn't call them a cult.  Some are very silly, some are not.  Usually a cult is where they try to force an idea down your throat, such as demanding you follow a medical rule or procedure, with no scientific or rational argument behind it.  If some people think Bill Gates wants to inject barcodes, that's just a theory, not a cult.  And research has been done into injectable quantum dye, vaccine patches, which are about storing info, so these aren't even lunatic theories, just reasonable ideas.

As for 'threats', it depends on the threat.  The threat of legal action is perfectly reasonable.  Has there been any threat of violence?  And harassment?  Providing information on the dangers on experimental treatments is neither harassment, nor a cult.

[johnofgwent]

But a PCR test doesn't detect the virus, it's looks for the signature of virus activity and it's output., in other words the effect on the body.  The detritus you talk about won't look like the COVID signature cause it won't create the same mayhem.

No, that isn't right. The "output" of the virus activity is severely damaged mucosal cells and cytoplasmic content in the blood. This was a pivotal point if the test I helped pioneer - and then became hoist on twenty years later when suspected of being an infarction victim. Cell damage happens to everyone.all the time. I can't stick a needle in you measure your serum transaminase activity and say you are an alcoholic. But I can stick two needles in six to nine hours apart, measure serum activity of key enzymes and look for a marked depletion over time. Such an act suggests a catastrophic event in the recent past killed many of your heart cells, leaching their content into the bloodstream, whereupon the liver began its natural process of clearing that shyte out of you. That's how we can confirm you had a severe cardiac event not QUITE enough to need the usual surgery right now, but WILL pretty damn soon if you don't change your ways.... And you have the life science dept at UC Cardiff 1982 to thank for it. In stark contrast the PCR test picks up chunks of DNA and runs them through the molecular analogy of a photocopier using the techniques my nephew's research lab use. Add monomer nucleic acids and watch the sausages appear. The problem is, if you do a swab on a dog, when the owner is positive, the dog sometimes has viral DNA fragments expelled by its owner into the atmosphere caught in its nasal membranes, and after running the molecular photocopier for long enough, those few strands are photocopied up to something that will test positive. This is exactly how, about a year ago, there was wid spread panic that the pox could transfer to dogs. It can't, the pox virus can't break into canine cells, but they can inhale inactive and destroyed viral particulate matter

[T00ts]

What kind of cultist things have the 'other side' said?  I've only heard freedom.

Perhaps you have selective hearing.

[cromwell]

What kind of cultist things have the 'other side' said?  I've only heard freedom.

What not heard the vaccine makes you magnetic or that it's a plot by Bill Gates to inject a bar code in to you amongst many other lunatic theories.

How about threatening nhs staff and harassing them or berating and harassing  kids of school age as they go into take a vaccine they have chosen to have?

[Scott777]

I've not looked up Zoe I don't really need to because for everyone like her there's another anti just as daft it's not as though you can label one side cultist  and severely affected is it?

What kind of cultist things have the 'other side' said?  I've only heard freedom.

[Nick]

The prime concern is that the number of "cycles" approaches a point where the detritus in the sample is amplified to the point it is considered meaningful.In short, the noise becomes the signal. Sticking a swab up your nose or throat causes all manner of junk to stick to it. This can include bits and pieces of chopped up DNA that are utterly inactive. These, if 'amplified' can appear extracts of active virus components when they most certainly are not.

But a PCR test doesn't detect the virus, it's looks for the signature of virus activity and it's output., in other words the effect on the body.  The detritus you talk about won't look like the COVID signature cause it won't create the same mayhem. 

[cromwell]

It does seem that the government have found themselves some new optimists as modelers for future scenarios.
The latest predictions are that cases will sharply decline, (down 18% since last week).
They are saying cases will be as low as 5,000 a day before Christmas.

Meanwhile the lockdown/mask/jab cultists call for plan B to be implemented immediately, whilst other extremists consider plan C.

If you really want to see what a cultist looks like, check out @zerocovidzoe on Twitter.
EDIT: She's changed her name @onlyzoenow. More evidence of a severely affected individual.

I've not looked up Zoe I don't really need to because for everyone like her there's another anti just as daft it's not as though you can label one side cultist  and severely affected is it?

[Barry]

It does seem that the government have found themselves some new optimists as modelers for future scenarios.
The latest predictions are that cases will sharply decline, (down 18% since last week).
They are saying cases will be as low as 5,000 a day before Christmas.

Meanwhile the lockdown/mask/jab cultists call for plan B to be implemented immediately, whilst other extremists consider plan C.

If you really want to see what a cultist looks like, check out @zerocovidzoe on Twitter.
EDIT: She's changed her name @onlyzoenow. More evidence of a severely affected individual.

[johnofgwent]

The idea of false positives / negatives is just a probability that you assign to a test.  Don't ask me how they get the numbers, but the chance of false positive is calculated from the specificity, which would include factors such as the CT.  You don't know if there's actual infectious disease, you only know there is a probability that the result is correct.  If someone gets a positive result, you (normally) have no way to know if it's false (i.e. not actually an infectious virus), you only know the probability that it was false.  If you are asking how they find the specificity of a testing procedure, i.e. the accuracy, I don't know, but it doesn't matter.  What matters is that tests cannot be 100% accurate, and there is some way to find the probability of accuracy.

The prime concern is that the number of "cycles" approaches a point where the detritus in the sample is amplified to the point it is considered meaningful.In short, the noise becomes the signal. Sticking a swab up your nose or throat causes all manner of junk to stick to it. This can include bits and pieces of chopped up DNA that are utterly inactive. These, if 'amplified' can appear extracts of active virus components when they most certainly are not.

[Scott777]

Another key point is, that in most cases the person has gone for a test cause they felt unwell, that has got to play a part in this.

True, but unwell with what?  It might be a cold or flu, and they might get a false positive test for SARS-COV2.

Experience tells you it can't be 100% accurate because nothing ever is, but for someone to give a figure of how inaccurate it is is ridiculous. If they can measure the inaccuracies they can correct them to 100% accurate.
Like you're suggesting it's just a guess as to what percentage is inaccurate which isn't science.

My guess is: when they set up a testing procedure, they do a certain amount of tests, and have a more accurate method of testing for SARS-COV, which is much more complicated and expensive.  Maybe they look for the entire genomic sequence to match it to SARS-COV.  I would assume they cannot use that in general, and so PCR is a cheaper, quicker alternative, but less accurate.  That would work.  They could then find the accuracy of the PCR test as a probability.  Specificity definitely exists.

[Nick]

The idea of false positives / negatives is just a probability that you assign to a test.  Don't ask me how they get the numbers, but the chance of false positive is calculated from the specificity, which would include factors such as the CT.  You don't know if there's actual infectious disease, you only know there is a probability that the result is correct.  If someone gets a positive result, you (normally) have no way to know if it's false (i.e. not actually an infectious virus), you only know the probability that it was false.  If you are asking how they find the specificity of a testing procedure, i.e. the accuracy, I don't know, but it doesn't matter.  What matters is that tests cannot be 100% accurate, and there is some way to find the probability of accuracy.

Another key point is, that in most cases the person has gone for a test cause they felt unwell, that has got to play a part in this.
Experience tells you it can't be 100% accurate because nothing ever is, but for someone to give a figure of how inaccurate it is is ridiculous. If they can measure the inaccuracies they can correct them to 100% accurate. 
Like you're suggesting it's just a guess as to what percentage is inaccurate which isn't science. 

[Scott777]

Hang on!!

You can't tell me what you thought I was going to say and then tell me I'm wrong. I didn't say it.
What I will say is, if there is no virus and you get a positive how do you know it's a false? Unless you test it again and then get a negative?

Don't get me wrong, I think the way the cases are counted is utterly wrong.

The idea of false positives / negatives is just a probability that you assign to a test.  Don't ask me how they get the numbers, but the chance of false positive is calculated from the specificity, which would include factors such as the CT.  You don't know if there's actual infectious disease, you only know there is a probability that the result is correct.  If someone gets a positive result, you (normally) have no way to know if it's false (i.e. not actually an infectious virus), you only know the probability that it was false.  If you are asking how they find the specificity of a testing procedure, i.e. the accuracy, I don't know, but it doesn't matter.  What matters is that tests cannot be 100% accurate, and there is some way to find the probability of accuracy.

[Nick]

But I assume you meant to say: if there is no virus, there is no false positive, which is patently false

Hang on!!

You can't tell me what you thought I was going to say and then tell me I'm wrong. I didn't say it.
What I will say is, if there is no virus and you get a positive how do you know it's a false? Unless you test it again and then get a negative?

Don't get me wrong, I think the way the cases are counted is utterly wrong.

[Scott777]

like I said if there is no cells containing virus you can multiply till the cows come home and you'll still have no virus.
So where is your false positive coming from?

Your statement is strictly true, and obvious: if there is no virus, there is no virus.  But I assume you meant to say: if there is no virus, there is no false positive, which is patently false, because then you are saying there are NEVER false positives, contradicting the ONS, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, and probably everyone under the sun.

[Nick]

Different assertions and you moved the goalposts, Nick.

The last lines of your link:But not entirely wrong.

But what they are pointing at is that with a high CT the amount of virus present was negligible and most likely would have never produced any symptoms. It was still a positive result though regardless of whether it needed to be counted as one.