Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

Actually the nhs talks about symptoms and what to do not positive tests. So the misinformation is yours here. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/covid-19-symptoms-and-what-to-do/


And yet again, a positive test means you have the virus within you and therefore the ability to spread it to others whether you have “disease” ie symptoms or not. You are still playing semantics about the use of the word disease rather than looking at the reasoning and purpose behind the advice to stay home (to reduce infecting others)

I'm talking about telling thousands of people they have COVID when they don't. It's not semantics.

If I can try to explain another way. Some believe Type 1 Diabetes is caused by a virus. Testing positive for a virus is NOT the same as having diabetes. Do you agree? It's not semantics.


Thus, telling people we have X number of people in hospital with COVID is not the same as X number of people in hospital with a positive test (in hospital for other reasons). But the two were reported as being the same thing, which is clearly not the same thing. It's not semantics.

Btw, a positive test doesn't even mean one has the virus either. The cycle thresholds were ran at such high replications (a billion times), one could probably find any virus. Plus, the tests do not look for viruses, but only fragments of a sequence of rna.

 

[Dragonheart]

I'm talking about telling thousands of people they have COVID when they don't. It's not semantics.

If I can try to explain another way. Some believe Type 1 Diabetes is caused by a virus. Testing positive for a virus is NOT the same as having diabetes. Do you agree? It's not semantics.


Thus, telling people we have X number of people in hospital with COVID is not the same as X number of people in hospital with a positive test (in hospital for other reasons). But the two were reported as being the same thing, which is clearly not the same thing. It's not semantics.

Btw, a positive test doesn't even mean one has the virus either. The cycle thresholds were ran at such high replications (a billion times), one could probably find any virus. Plus, the tests do not look for viruses, but only fragments of a sequence of rna.

They have the Covid virus in their body, otherwise they couldn’t test positive. They can spread the virus. That’s the relevant part. Some people will become sick and also have the disease.

Type 1 diabetes is the results of an autoimmune reaction, potentially triggered by a virus. You cannot catch the reaction and type 1 even if you do catch the same virus - every individual reacts differently to the unknown virus same as they do Covid virus. Different argument.

I agree being in hospital FOR Covid or because Covid has added to the burden of their other conditions isn’t the same as being there for a positive test alone.

Rapid tests don’t run cycles

 

[Amity Island]

They have the Covid virus in their body

Covid isn't a virus; similarly, diabetes isn't a virus .

otherwise they couldn’t test positive.

The tests test for either active (replicating) virus (which has the ability to be infectious) or inactive virus which isn't infectious.

They can spread the virus. That’s the relevant part.

The tests do not show either way if the person is infectious or not, that's the relevant part. The positive tests resulted in the isolation of individuals who may be unable to infect others.

They have the Covid virus in their body, otherwise they couldn’t test positive. They can spread the virus. That’s the relevant part. Some people will become sick and also have the disease.

Type 1 diabetes is the results of an autoimmune reaction, potentially triggered by a virus.

COVID is an immune reaction to the sars cov 2 virus. Genetic disposition appears to be one of the main reasons for it's severity in people along with any prior exposure to the virus.

They have the Covid virus in their body, otherwise they couldn’t test positive. They can spread the virus. That’s the relevant part. Some people will become sick and also have the disease.

Type 1 diabetes is the results of an autoimmune reaction. Different argument.

The virus is a virus, the disease is the disease. Two different and independent things. However these were often referred to being the same thing during the pandemic, with their "COVID-19" test centres.

 

[Dragonheart]

Covid isn't a virus; similarly, diabetes isn't a virus .


The tests test for either active (replicating) virus (which has the ability to be infectious) or inactive virus which isn't infectious.


The tests do not show either way if the person is infectious or not, that's the relevant part. The positive tests resulted in the isolation of individuals who may be unable to infect others.

COVID is an immune reaction to the sars cov 2 virus. Genetic disposition appears to be one of the main reasons for it's severity in people along with any prior exposure to the virus.


The virus is a virus, the disease is the disease. Two different and independent things. However these were often referred to being the same thing during the pandemic, with their "COVID-19" test centres.

Wow. How to twist the meaning of my post.

We’ve had the conversation many times. Most people use the word Covid interchangeably with sars-cov-2. Not technically correct I agree but the public usually understand the word Covid being used for both the virus and the disease. Apparently not all of them if you are representative. Covid is the result of the sars-cov-2 virus being in the body. T1 Diabetes may be the result of various virus’.

The home rapid tests look for antigen proteins of sar-cov2. You are mixing it up with pcr tests that do indeed look for rna or it’s remnants. If you test positive on a rapid test, done properly, you do indeed have the virus in your body as their accuracy in positive cases is much higher that their poor rate of false negatives, which means it can potentially be transmitted.

You as an individual have no way of knowing how infectious you are, or aren’t, until your body has cleared the active virus. But whilst you have the active sars-cov-2 virus in your body it’s certainly possible. Whether you personally are sick (yet) (with Covid) or not is another issue.

 

[Amity Island]

Whether you personally are sick (with Covid) or not is another issue.

This is the point I have been trying very hard to explain.

This is why we cannot mix the meanings, the fundamental difference between the virus and the disease.

You cannot diagnose people from a positive test (which is what they did over and over) without any symptoms. Lost count how many times I've heard someone say I've got "COVID", then go on to say they are perfectly well without symptoms.

@Dragonheart do you really not understand the difference (between a positive test and actually having disease) or the point I am making?

I don't mind explaining, but not if this is just goading and winding up.

 

[Amity Island]

New virus strain FLUqe is impacting Australia and the U.S.

South Australia's entire public hospital system is operating under an internal emergency with long patient wait times and delayed elective surgeries.

'Significant demand' crippling SA hospitals as 270 staff stay home with COVID

South Australian public hospitals are under strain with the health department boss declaring a system-wide internal emergency after many staff are sick with COVID.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Dragonheart]

This is the point I have been trying very hard to explain.

This is why we cannot mix the meanings, the fundamental difference between the virus and the disease.

You cannot diagnose people from a positive test (which is what they did over and over) without any symptoms. Lost count how many times I've heard someone say I've got "COVID", then go on to say they are perfectly well without symptoms.

@Dragonheart do you really not understand the difference (between a positive test and actually having disease) or the point I am making?

I don't mind explaining, but not if this is just goading and winding up.

Yes I totally understand the point you make and the difference. But it doesn’t matter. And that’s what you don’t get.

Yes people use the wrong word to describe the virus. But it doesn’t matter for the purpose for which they are using it. Everyone understands they mean the virus as much as they mean the disease. The words “sars-cov-2” really don’t trip off the tongue the way “Covid” does.

The positive rapid test confirms the presence of the active virus (whatever you call it) in a person.It doesn’t matter if they are sick (ie have the covid disease) or not for the purposes of public health and transmission, they DO have the (sars-cov-2) virus. That is the thing that puts others at risk - regardless of if you feel unwell or if someone misnames it in a way almost everyone understands or any other games.

 

[Dragonheart]

New virus strain FLUqe is impacting Australia and the U.S.

South Australia's entire public hospital system is operating under an internal emergency with long patient wait times and delayed elective surgeries.

'Significant demand' crippling SA hospitals as 270 staff stay home with COVID

South Australian public hospitals are under strain with the health department boss declaring a system-wide internal emergency after many staff are sick with COVID.

www.abc.net.au

So it seems these new variants are giving more people more serious disease. Which they caught from people who had the virus!

 

[Bruce Stephens]

So it seems these new variants are giving more people more serious disease. Which they caught from people who had the virus!

A number of hospitals in the UK have reintroduced masking to try and control infections, as numbers seem to be rising generally. (It doesn't seem to be conforming to the seasonal patterns of many respiratory viruses.)

 

[Dragonheart]

It doesn't seem to be conforming to the seasonal patterns of many respiratory viruses.)

Probably because it’s not just a respiratory or seasonal virus, the way people want it to be so they can dismiss it as a cold.

 

[Amity Island]

Yes I totally understand the point you make and the difference. But it doesn’t matter. And that’s what you don’t get.

Yes people use the wrong word to describe the virus. But it doesn’t matter for the purpose for which they are using it. Everyone understands they mean the virus as much as they mean the disease. The words “sars-cov-2” really don’t trip off the tongue the way “Covid” does.

The positive rapid test confirms the presence of the active virus (whatever you call it) in a person.It doesn’t matter if they are sick (ie have the covid disease) or not for the purposes of public health and transmission, they DO have the (sars-cov-2) virus. That is the thing that puts others at risk - regardless of if you feel unwell or if someone misnames it in a way almost everyone understands or any other games.

I fully appreciate your point. My point is on a different issue. It matters because:

1. We were being told X number of people are in hospital with COVID, when a lot were not in there for COVID at all. They had no illness or symptoms of COVID.

2. People were telling others they had COVID when they didn't, again perfectly well with no illness or disease.

3. Reporting daily COVID-19 case numbers, when many of those didn't even have COVID, again well with no symptoms.

However this discussion is only a tiny part of the issues, tip of the iceberg. There were far, far bigger issues.

In a nutshell, they turfed out the elderly, locked in the well and left the vulnerable to die. Laws were broken, humans rights were apparently breached. All with the assistance of willing healthcare staff. All will have known what they were doing.

They coined all this "the first wave" and as I pointed out before, there were no noticeable excess deaths until after these laws were broken and lockdowns began.

On John Campbells channel there is a small compilation of these issues raised by lawyers representing the elderly at the Scottish Enquiry and no doubt these issues happened all over the world .

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Probably because it’s not just a respiratory or seasonal virus, the way people want it to be so they can dismiss it as a cold.

I think it's still regarded as a respiratory virus (in that that's how you spread it), though it affects much more than just the airways and lungs (as other respiratory viruses can, obviously). I think there's some surprise (among non-minimisers) that it just doesn't seem to be more seasonal.

 

[Amity Island]

I think it's still regarded as a respiratory virus (in that that's how you spread it), though it affects much more than just the airways and lungs (as other respiratory viruses can, obviously).

Yes, and this is where the mRNA vaccines fell short, by providing only some systemic benefits without the early respiratory response where the virus enters. Hence, now we are likely looking to more and more mRNA vaccines as the virus changes. There again, this was all known at the time by the developers.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Yes, and this is where the mRNA vaccines fell short, by providing only some systemic benefits without the early respiratory response where the virus enters.

There aren't that many mucosal vaccines. In contrast, the Oxford team had developed injectable vaccines for SARS1, MERS which they thought would have been effective (though funding stopped before suitable trials and before use, I think), and the mRNA people were pretty confident. I know groups are working on them but I don't think there's that much certainty about how effective they'll be or for how long the effectiveness will last (as there are apparently some questions about the longevity of mRNA vaccines compared with the likes of Novavax with their protein subunit vaccine). There's also less money around now, so I'm not that confident we'll ever see one reach the market.

Despite what some US court might say, vaccines are primarily about reducing harms for the people who get them, so delivering vaccines which were extremely effective at reducing serious illness in about a year is an astonishing achievement that we should welcome and is exactly what was hoped for. Of course it would also be nice to have a vaccine which reduced infection and transmission, but vaccines don't generally do those nearly as well as reducing sickness, and it's not clear that it's even practical. Reducing transmission can definitely happen (depending on the virus), but reducing infection is probably much less common. For measles, the vaccine definitely reduces transmission, but for polio it doesn't.

 

[Dragonheart]

I fully appreciate your point. My point is on a different issue. It matters because:

1. We were being told X number of people are in hospital with COVID, when a lot were not in there for COVID at all. They had no illness or symptoms of COVID.

Fair point. But there’s no denying in the early days there was an almost overwhelming number most definitely there FOR Covid. I’m not sure how you can identify which ones were there entirely for unrelated reasons. You claim “a lot”. Who knows? For some the addition of Covid to their other conditions may have tipped the balance.

2. People were telling others they had COVID when they didn't, again perfectly well with no illness or disease.

That goes back to what does it matter. They were positive and potentially infectious. Hopefully taking precautions to avoid infecting others.

3. Reporting daily COVID-19 case numbers, when many of those didn't even have COVID, again well with no symptoms.

Fair but again they (inaccurately labelled) meant positive tests/infected with the virus. That was still important information and highly relevant to the spread and outcomes. There was no way to apportion %’s.

And how would you do it. What groups? On the verge of death, seriously ill in hospital, very sick at home bedridden, fairly ill and stuck on the sofa, rough but functioning, a bit off colour, a few sniffles but doing ok, totally symptom free? Chaos.

Why do you still care so much now years later about the words used then?

However this discussion is only a tiny part of the issues, tip of the iceberg. There were far, far bigger issues.

In a nutshell, they turfed out the elderly, locked in the well and left the vulnerable to die. Laws were broken,

All true

humans rights were apparently breached. All with the assistance of willing healthcare staff. All will have known what they were doing.

Mmm not so sure that’s as clear cut as you present it

They coined all this "the first wave" and as I pointed out before, there were no noticeable excess deaths until after these laws were broken and lockdowns began.

Seriously? You think people only died once the rules you didn’t like were in place? Nothing to do with the rise in virus cases? Or that things didn’t really get worse before they got better the way it happens with all epidemics/pandemics?

On John Campbells channel there is a small compilation of these issues raised by lawyers representing the elderly at the Scottish Enquiry and no doubt these issues happened all over the world .

Sorry. He cherry picks and distorts data too much for me to take him seriously

 

[Leadinglights]

There aren't that many mucosal vaccines. In contrast, the Oxford team had developed injectable vaccines for SARS1, MERS which they thought would have been effective (though funding stopped before suitable trials and before use, I think), and the mRNA people were pretty confident. I know groups are working on them but I don't think there's that much certainty about how effective they'll be or for how long the effectiveness will last (as there are apparently some questions about the longevity of mRNA vaccines compared with the likes of Novavax with their protein subunit vaccine). There's also less money around now, so I'm not that confident we'll ever see one reach the market.

Despite what some US court might say, vaccines are primarily about reducing harms for the people who get them, so delivering vaccines which were extremely effective at reducing serious illness in about a year is an astonishing achievement that we should welcome and is exactly what was hoped for. Of course it would also be nice to have a vaccine which reduced infection and transmission, but vaccines don't generally do those nearly as well as reducing sickness, and it's not clear that it's even practical. Reducing transmission can definitely happen (depending on the virus), but reducing infection is probably much less common. For measles, the vaccine definitely reduces transmission, but for polio it doesn't.

I worked in a lab that was doing research on polio because it had been found that in underdeveloped countries there were cases of vaccine acquired infection and they discovered that as the oral attenuated vaccine passaged through the gut it was transformed into live virus which because of poor hygiene in those countries was picked up and caused the cases.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I worked in a lab that was doing research on polio because it had been found that in underdeveloped countries there were cases of vaccine acquired infection and they discovered that as the oral attenuated vaccine passaged through the gut it was transformed into live virus which because of poor hygiene in those countries was picked up and caused the cases.

As I understand it the vaccine/virus doesn't revert exactly to the wild type virus (the two can be distinguished) but it does become able to paralyse again, which is obviously bad. There's at least one newer OPV for type 2 poliovirus which is more resistant to reversion but I think it still can revert (so is presumably doomed, eventually). People are obviously working on safer vaccines that can still be used in countries where IPV is hard to use. (I fear we'll never be able to stop vaccinating because we'll always have the type 2 vaccine related virus, but maybe we will. WHO still seem keen to eradicate the viruses.)

 

[Leadinglights]

As I understand it the vaccine/virus doesn't revert exactly to the wild type virus (the two can be distinguished) but it does become able to paralyse again, which is obviously bad. There's at least one newer OPV for type 2 poliovirus which is more resistant to reversion but I think it still can revert (so is presumably doomed, eventually). People are obviously working on safer vaccines that can still be used in countries where IPV is hard to use. (I fear we'll never be able to stop vaccinating because we'll always have the type 2 vaccine related virus, but maybe we will. WHO still seem keen to eradicate the viruses.)

This was going back a bit, in the mid 80ies. PCR only just invented.

 

[Amity Island]

Fair point. But there’s no denying in the early days there was an almost overwhelming number most definitely there FOR Covid. I’m not sure how you can identify which ones were there entirely for unrelated reasons. You claim “a lot”. Who knows? For some the addition of Covid to their other conditions may have tipped the balance

@Dragonheart Take a look at this story back in July 2021 on routinely testing people (which was against government advice e.g tests are meant to be used to confirm existing COVID disease) upon admission to hospital.

"The Department for Health and Social Care said this measure was still "the most important" because of the impact Covid-positive patients have on NHS capacity and workforce pressure.

This allows hospitals to provide the most appropriate care and use the right infection control measures to help stop the spread of the virus.

Patients with Covid should be treated away from non-infected patients".

Covid: Up to one in four admitted to hospital for other reasons

The government says counting all patients who test positive is vital because of the impact on the NHS.

www.bbc.co.uk

@Dragonheart given mRNA vaccines don't prevent infection and thus a positive test, how are/were these vaccines going to change this situation and stop people testing positive? And knowing the vaccines didn't prevent infection or transmission or even illness in many, why did they:

Mandate them?
Coerce people into taking them?
Bribe them into taking them?
Effectively force them (no jab no job)?
Prevent travel if not jabbed?
Tell people to get them to protect others?

Worse still, they completely ignored and gaslit those with acquired immunity from prior infection.

All they were interested in was getting people jabbed, regardless of age, risk, vulnerability, acquired immunity, personal choice. Especially given by the time vaccines came out the virus was not the same as the virus the vaccines were developed for.

They were telling us to get the jab to protect granny, whilst granny was being turfed out of hospital (where their beds were left empty for months) moved into care homes and left to die on their own.

 

[Amity Island]

Why do you still care so much now years later about the words used then?

Because the whole thing stinks. There is something fundamentally off with all of it.