Misc.

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, July 31. 2021

He sold cheesesteaks to take his mom on the trip of a lifetime. She died weeks after getting back.

Biracial doctor demoted for objecting to BLM-inspired segregation policy, files lawsuit against hospital

74% Of COVID-19 Cases From Massachusetts Outbreak Occurred In Fully Vaccinated People: CDC

Were they "cases," or were they sick?

SOME DARE CALL IT INFRASTRUCTURE

Iran’s execution of wrestler Navid Afkari sparks outcry on social media

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 09:33 | Comments (33) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I admit it - that first story had my eyes damp.

#1 Maniac on 2021-07-31 10:27 (Reply)

Me too. It especially hit home because my wife survived stage 3 bladder cancer when she was 38. That was a hell of year. The fix has impacted her ever since but I still have her and she is very healthy and creating beautiful Art in our home.

#1.1 Kevin on 2021-07-31 15:55 (Reply)

Me three. I'm glad your wife is still with you. My Mom loved to travel but finally (age 75) got to the point where she couldn't. Life is shorter than we think.

#1.1.1 snopercod on 2021-07-31 18:58 (Reply)

Cases vs sick

The media and government bodies always conflate “positive tests” with “cases” as if a positive (and often false positive) PCR test always turns into a case requiring medical treatment. This is disinformation and contributes to public ignorance, which is how the nedia and government bodies like it.

#2 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2021-07-31 10:34 (Reply)

All true, but on the other hand, our government (and many private companies) are pressuring us to take a “vaccine” that according to their own metrics seems not only ineffective but possibly dangerous to not only the vaccinated but also the unvaccinated as well.

note: It’s more fun to argue against the government from the government’s own position but it’s also a lot sadder that we can so easily.

#2.1 mudbug on 2021-07-31 10:56 (Reply)

mudbug: our government (and many private companies) are pressuring us to take a “vaccine” that according to their own metrics seems not only ineffective but possibly dangerous to not only the vaccinated but also the unvaccinated as well.

That is incorrect. The vaccines are very effective, but not perfect, at preventing the alpha strain of COVID-19 (95%) and SARS-CoV-2 infection (~80%). The data is still incomplete on the delta strain, but the evidence indicates strong protection for delta as well (but not perfect).

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 11:49 (Reply)

Site whatever statistics you want, but if the CDC, as Bloomberg reported, had "stopped comprehensively tracking what are known as vaccine breakthrough cases in May", then the effectiveness of the vaccine is unknown. Further since they certainly didn't stop because there were no more breakthrough cases to track, it's likely they stopped tracking them because they want to hide something so the situation is certainly worse than the CDC is willing to admit to.

Now, if you told the people of Barnstable County before they took the vaccine, that cases among the vaccinated could be more prevalent than those not vaccinated, most would think that it was ineffective. And (leaving off the discussion of the effectivity of masks) if you told them that vaccinated family members should wear masks around unvaccinated family members they might assume that they would be otherwise endangering their unvaccinated family members.

The simple truth is that there have been more severe reactions and deaths attributed to Wuhan flu vaccines than in all vaccines in the past combined. Vaccine candidates in the past have been pulled for fewer deaths and bad reactions. Lastly we do not know the long term affects of these vaccines. We are the long term trial and if we all take it, there will be no control group to compare against. Maybe that's the idea...

#2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2021-07-31 14:48 (Reply)

mudbug: Further since they certainly didn't stop because there were no more breakthrough cases to track

According to the report, they stopped tracking them because they were rare at the time. Since the outbreak of the delta variant, that decision is certainly questionable.

mudbug: Now, if you told the people of Barnstable County before they took the vaccine, that cases among the vaccinated could be more prevalent than those not vaccinated, most would think that it was ineffective.

That isn't true, though. In the U.S. the vast majority of cases, including hospitalizations and deaths are among the unvaccinated.

mudbug: The simple truth is that there have been more severe reactions and deaths attributed to Wuhan flu vaccines than in all vaccines in the past combined.

That is incorrect. Severe adverse reactions to the mRNA vaccines are very rare.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 14:59 (Reply)

Furthermore, according to the article you cited, there were about 112 thousand breakthrough cases through July. However, there were 100 thousand cases in the U.S. just yesterday (and 400 deaths)—and climbing. That clearly shows that vaccination is working.

#2.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 15:17 (Reply)

What test were they using? The PCR test can not differentiate between influenza and corona. They both show positive. So again we find that most of the statistics have no basis in reality. But the testing won't stop which is why Gates and Soros just recently invested in a new testing company that can differentiate between influenza and corona. Now you know why there were very few cases of influenza since corona testing. All positives were treated as corona...and there was good money in doing so. The medical establishment is reflecting the ethics of the educational establishment. It is their decision to serve the government needs rather than the client needs. And no, the PCR test is not the gold standard...even the developer of the PCR test said it was only used as an emergency test because it is NOT accurate. Without calling this " pandemic" an emergency neither the PCR test or the so called "vaccines" could be legally used. Did you and the CDC get your information from the 17 intelligence agencies?

#2.1.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2021-07-31 16:02 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The PCR test can not differentiate between influenza and corona.

That is incorrect. See our response to Ted below.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 16:39 (Reply)

Listen troll master...The FDA just released a document admitting that they and the CDC fabricated their test which means their test is not based on the covid sample but on a cold sample. It was just reported by a Canadian new source and is now being pointed out by US news sources. The sources even lead you to the FDA site where they admit what they did. You have to be the Rachael Maddow of the blog world. And 17 intelligence agencies confirm it.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2021-07-31 18:52 (Reply)

Uh, no. Notably, you did not provide a citation.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 19:26 (Reply)

https://freedomfirstnetwork.com/2021/07/cdc-fda-faked-covid-testing-protocol-by-using-human-cells-mixed-with-common-cold-virus-fragments
Also whatafinger has the report from IOTW, "CDCinternal document indicates there never was a test for Covid 19"
Either one takes you to the FDA website admitting what they did.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2021-07-31 20:35 (Reply)

QUOTE:

an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.

No. That’s not what it says. They used “transcribed full length RNA” from the known sequence of SARS-Cov-2 (then called 2019-nCoV) the virus that causes COVID-19.

QUOTE:

That’s because no doctor or researcher has isolated “covid” from any infected, symptomatic patient.

That’s just silly. Since then, of course, there has been wide availability of the live virus in labs around the world.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 22:53 (Reply)

It does appear that the FDA, CDC, NIH, and the Fauci brotherhood are the Covid, Covid, Covid Steele dossier.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2021-07-31 20:55 (Reply)

Here’s the genome sequence.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 23:04 (Reply)

Trying again
https://www.viprbrc.org/brc/viprStrainDetails.spg?ncbiAccession=MN908947&decorator=corona

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2021-08-01 07:56 (Reply)

Funny that this genome has a large repeating sequence at the very end..
"AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA"
which doesn't look natural at all.
I don't see that on any of the other Coronavirus sequences on that site.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 nunnya bidnez jr on 2021-08-01 19:45 (Reply)

nunnya bidnez jr: I don't see that on any of the other Coronavirus sequences on that site.

They include many other coronaviruses, along with their phylogenies.

https://www.viprbrc.org/brc/home.spg?decorator=corona

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-08-02 07:53 (Reply)

nunnya bidnez jr: which doesn't look natural at all.

Hmm. Neither does the "©Wuhan Institute of Virology" embedded in the code.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2021-08-02 08:04 (Reply)

Jeff Brokaw: The media and government bodies always conflate “positive tests” with “cases” as if a positive (and often false positive) PCR test always turns into a case requiring medical treatment.

Infections, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are clearly distinguished in the statistics.

Estimated COVID Burden

120.2 million infections
101.8 million symptomatic illnesses
{35.7 million cases}
6.2 million hospitalizations
767 thousand deaths

#2.2 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 11:58 (Reply)

The Barnstable timebomb has exploded: 469 cases, 5 of them required hospitalization. Time to panic! That's over 1% of the population, compared to the pre-vaccine rate of a mere 6%.

#2.2.1 Jerryskids on 2021-07-31 12:23 (Reply)

Jerryskids: 469 cases, 5 of them required hospitalization. Time to panic!

Panic rarely helps. Exponential growth patterns lend urgency to such reports, though.

As you note, the hospitalization rate is lower than the pre-vaccination rate. However, it's clear that even vaccinated people should avoid large crowds, especially in light of the novel delta variant.

#2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 12:29 (Reply)

Because ... everyone gets their information straight from the CDC website?

You missed my point about how 95% of the world gets their information - local news never breaks these numbers out in their daily context-free reports on new “cases” based purely on highly suspect PCR testing, and neither does national news or any media outlet I have seen or heard. Politicians never break these out, except for Rand Paul and a few others.

The truth doesn’t matter if everyone runs around making shit up. And that is 100% the world we live in today.

#2.2.2 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2021-07-31 13:48 (Reply)

Jeff Brokaw: Because ... everyone gets their information straight from the CDC website?

Because your claim was, in part, that "government bodies always conflate 'positive tests' with 'cases'." A case is defined by the CDC as any of the following:

• Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic linkage with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for SARS-CoV-2
• Meets presumptive laboratory evidence
• Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory evidence for SARS-CoV-2

So, yes. If someone tests positive for COVID, then they represent a case.

As for the media, they are hardly experts, they often mangle the science and tend to look for the simple or sensational explanation, even if it is not exact.

Jeff Brokaw: You missed my point about how 95% of the world gets their information - local news never breaks these numbers out in their daily context-free reports on new “cases” based purely on highly suspect PCR testing

PCR testing is not suspect, but remains the gold-standard for detection with known sources of error. False negatives are relatively frequent, but false positives are rare.

#2.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 14:46 (Reply)

PCR tests are only approved under an EUA, and at the prior recommended 35x+ amplification are far too inaccurate at finding live vurus and therefore generate many many false positives. This is a fact, admitted by Fauci and even the WHO after a full year of using these poor quality EUA-only tests, and WHO then changed the threshold to 28 (tainting the data pool even further when viewed across time). This is noisy data, “gold standard” or no.

So the test results have far too much error built-in to be useful and cannot represent cases because they cannot be counted on to even find live virus in the first place.

And even a good test (if we had one) that finds only live virus with very few false positives would also generate many positives who are still asymptomatic and should not be counted as cases in the normal sense of the term, receiving medical treatment.

So we are now at two levels of large systemic error: (1) test is poor quality and generates many false positives and (2) even a good test would find asymptomatics not requiring treatment and not spreading the virus due to low viral load.

This testing data is a giant mess, far too messy to be useful.

Have a great Sunday.

#2.2.2.1.1 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2021-08-01 10:46 (Reply)

Jeff Brokaw: PCR tests are only approved under an EUA, and at the prior recommended 35x+ amplification are far too inaccurate at finding live vurus and therefore generate many many false positives.

False positive PCR tests for COVID are unusual, and when they occur, they are often due to quality assurance problems. False negatives are much more common, usually due to testing too soon or too late during the course of the disease.
https://medical.mit.edu/faqs/faq-testing-covid-19#faq-9

However, when frequency of disease is low, even a low false positive rate can result in a poor positive predictive value. This is a straightforward result of the statistics: Assume that there is a false positive rate of 5% and a false negative rate of 5%. If 1000 out of 10000 are truly infected, you will have 950 true positives and 180 false positives. If only 100 out of 10000 are truly infected, then you will have 95 true positives and 198 false positives.

The lesson is that no test is perfect. When it matters, more exact testing may be required, such as when trying to trace the evolution of new variants, or when disease frequency is low.

Jeff Brokaw: And even a good test (if we had one) that finds only live virus with very few false positives would also generate many positives who are still asymptomatic and should not be counted as cases in the normal sense of the term, receiving medical treatment.

That would simply redefine the medical meaning of a case, not change the underlying facts. Someone who carries the virus may still transmit the disease even if asymptomatic, so they are rightly considered to be cases. The CDC distinguishes between infections, symptomatic illnesses, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. (See comment above.)

#2.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-08-01 12:35 (Reply)

"COVID 'cases' " We need to know if "positive tests" are a component of "cases". Considering that the CDC has recommended certain tests not be used, because they can't discriminate between COVID and influenza, and because 'flu' treatments have been suspiciously low, I'd guess that 'flu' victims are being treated as COVID, and hospital administrators are lobbying for precautionary admissions to get the COVID override payments.

#3 Ted on 2021-07-31 10:37 (Reply)

Ted: Considering that the CDC has recommended certain tests not be used, because they can't discriminate between COVID and influenza, and because 'flu' treatments have been suspiciously low, I'd guess that 'flu' victims are being treated as COVID, and hospital administrators are lobbying for precautionary admissions to get the COVID override payments.

That's false. Think about it. The tests can even tell which strain of COVID you might have. The same with influenza tests. Currently, they are separate tests. The CDC is recommending a move towards a protocol that tests for both COVID and influenza. This will be more efficient than two tests as the flu season approaches.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-31 11:42 (Reply)

In general, while standard PCR tests are not made less accurate by mutations, the tests do not reliably identify specific variants. Variant determination requires genome sequencing of the virus and is performed by a separate monitoring network.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/31/fact-check-covid-19-pcr-tests-dont-detect-virus-variants/5407334001/

https://www.clickondetroit.com/health/2021/05/05/do-pcr-tests-detect-covid-variants-do-vaccines-prevent-severe-illness-caused-by-covid-variants/

#3.1.1 Christopher B on 2021-08-01 15:20 (Reply)

Christopher B: In general, while standard PCR tests are not made less accurate by mutations, the tests do not reliably identify specific variants. Variant determination requires genome sequencing of the virus and is performed by a separate monitoring network.

That's already changed.
https://www.bio-rad.com/featured/en/sars-cov-2-variants-pcr-assays.html

PCR testing can be used to distinguish between known variants. In any case, it's bunk that PCR tests can't distinguish between colds, flus, and COVID-19.

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-08-02 07:58 (Reply)

"Zachriel" wrote:

That is incorrect. See our response to Ted below.
#2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel

Ah Ha! Zachriel inadverdantly admits that they aren't a single person, but rather a troll farm using the name Zachriel.

good to have that confirmed.

#4 nunnya bidnez jr on 2021-08-01 10:08 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, July 31. 2021

Misc.