• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

COVID the real numbers? Not all doom and gloom.

bulkbiker said:
But that's the big question as nobody knows how many of us have been exposed to it..
Click to expand...
Indeed. It’s like not knowing if you’ve played Russian roulette or not.

I’d like to know if I’ve played and won already. (Although might not be so reassuring perhaps instead of immunity a prior exposure and mild unnoticed infection will merely have used up an empty chamber or have softened you up for a super hitting 2nd dose or turn you into the walking dead )
 
bulkbiker said:
But that's the big question as nobody knows how many of us have been exposed to it..
Click to expand...

The only point I'd like to make in response BB is that you yourself posted not long ago about UK laboratories only finding 1 or 2 positive results in a couple of thousand tests if memory serves me correctly.

So I'd suggest it is an indication that the percentile infection rate across the UK is probably quite low?
 

Or how completely rubbish the tests are/were and might be?
I think that was antibody tests though wasn't it ? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
An equally murky kettle of fish.
 
DavidGrahamJones said:
This report, dated May 20th, suggests that dead virus fragments are causing COVID-19 reinfection false positives. Definitely a tricky little so and so.
Click to expand...
That was in Korea correct?
The more I read about test accuracy the more I am astounded that they are used to shut down cities and towns willy nilly.
 
bulkbiker said:
Dear Dr Kendrick gets it 100%

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/04/covid-why-terminology-really-matters/

here is a teaser...

View attachment 43748
Click to expand...

For me the raw data does not tell the whole story. Whilst I accept the numbers paint an interesting picture and I am curious about what's going on, I am mindful of what's being written in several places about viral load.

If you have received a low viral load there seems to be an increased chance that your immune system can cope with the infection without intervention. But of course you would test positive if subjected to a swab test.

This muddies the waters because you may (have a low viral load and may) be symptomless and would not represent a case, or you may be symptomless with a high viral load if you're naturally somehow immune.

If the concept of viral load being important is accepted then questions follow.

Was lockdown successful in containing the spread of the virus, such that the number (and severity) of new infections reduced, - I think it was.

As we start moving around, are the current measures of face masks, social distancing and improved hygiene working to reduce the number of infections where a high viral load is transmitted? It can probably be argued that they are.

In short, is one symptomless ( with a low viral load) because of the measures that have been put in place or in spite of them? That is a question we still don't know the answer to and it does not seem to be addressed by the article.
 
Sorry, I forgot to attach the report that I was referring to. It's probably not important.
 
bulkbiker said:
Yet still reporting positive tests as "cases" .. its hardly rocket science why can't they get it right.
Click to expand...

But we don't know that it's wrong. They could all have symptoms and be 'cases' in theory.
 
For many of the reasons listed in the article.
Besides, @urbanracer was just talking in possibilities, not absolutes.
None of us have the info to speak in absolutes.
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
They are still not "cases" ... people who aren't sick aren't "cases"... they are well people that a faulty test has identified as positive.
Click to expand...

while I realise you are on a mission to shoehorn available information to fit your theories, you would really be better not making unsubstantiated absolute statements like that. You undermine your own argument.
 
Brunneria said:
while I realise you are on a mission to shoehorn available information to fit your theories, you would really be better not making unsubstantiated absolute statements like that. You undermine your own argument.
Click to expand...

I am simply giving an alternative view to the many doom and gloom threads on this issue.
Hardly a "mission" ... I'm sorry that you don't like what I think but I'm afraid that will not change my thoughts.

Please name me another condition where symptomless positive test results (from a test which has been shown to be faulty and gives multiple false positives) would be solely used to define a "case".
When have we ever tested the well to see if they have a disease?
 
bulkbiker said:
But then why no significant increases in hospitalisations?
Click to expand...
I've just heard the same on C4 news, cases means nothing without context. Its like they are deliberately trying to create panic. It does not matter whether there is one case or 1 million cases if those who are positive have no or mild symptoms and take the necessary precautions, and those of us with co-morbidities remain cautious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…