Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

New Zealand concentration camps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Your logic, as usual, is unclear here.

    Yes, no test is 100% accurate all the time, and the testing methodology can be adjusted to either limit the number of false positives or limit the number of false negatives. PCR testing in general is a very high quality very accurate testing method and it has been around for a decent amount of time now and is well-understood and widely used for all sorts of things.

    Why should small inaccuracies in test methodology have an impact on political policies? Why would the general public care?
    Wow. You bewilder me. The test can be as inaccurate as they want -- it can detect virus remnant or active virus -- but cannot tell the difference. If you test 1000 people who have no illness, an 20% false positive will have 200 people quarantined. The test is meaningless except for research purposes (as the nobel winning inventor said of it). Plus, as I mentioned before (without so much detail), if you go from 40 cycles down to 35, you will go from near certain positive results down to results that might mean something for research purposes.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Your logic, as usual, is unclear here.

      Yes, no test is 100% accurate all the time, and the testing methodology can be adjusted to either limit the number of false positives or limit the number of false negatives. PCR testing in general is a very high quality very accurate testing method and it has been around for a decent amount of time now and is well-understood and widely used for all sorts of things.

      Why should small inaccuracies in test methodology have an impact on political policies? Why would the general public care?
      I meant to edit this as part of my previous response ... but got diverted and things timed out.
      So, you are absolutely wrong (with no uncertainty), that it is a good test for seeing if someone is infected and/or contagious.

      You can hear the scientist who made the PCR process on this video:

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        If you test 1000 people who have no illness, an 20% false positive will have 200 people quarantined.
        The PCR tests are vastly more accurate than 20% false positive rates. Here's an analysis. The majority of the Covid tests in use have a false positive rate listed as 0% (100% minus the listed specificity metric). Lets say they've rounded that, so what they mean is 0% to 0.5%.

        Also it's common for PCR tests to be done in triplicate to triple-check the results. You can obviously also take another set of samples from the person a few days later and try the test again.

        After New Zealand successfully eliminated Covid from the country, the government continued to do thousands of Covid tests per day on citizens who wanted to be tested, either because they had some cold symptoms or at random testing sites. For over a hundred days they did 1000-5000 tests per day, and not a single one of those ever tested positive. So the false-positive rate was incredibly close to zero with the tests the government was using.

        So I'm left scratching my head at your crazy statement. They did test lots of people, and they didn't get false positives, and nobody got quarantined as a result. Your imaginary situation is the exact opposite of what literally actually happened in New Zealand.

        The test is meaningless except for research purposes (as the nobel winning inventor said of it).
        That guy was infamous for being a nutbar and wrong about everything. He's a joke among the biological scientist community. He wrote books about how HIV wasn't the cause of AIDS, because he was nuts.

        Plus, as I mentioned before (without so much detail), if you go from 40 cycles down to 35, you will go from near certain positive results down to results that might mean something for research purposes.
        If you adjust the methodology on any test, you'll get different outcomes. So what?
        Last edited by Starlight; 10-31-2020, 01:36 AM.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          The PCR tests are vastly more accurate than 20% false positive rates. Here's an analysis. The majority of the Covid tests in use have a false positive rate listed as 0% (100% minus the listed specificity metric). Lets say they've rounded that, so what they mean is 0% to 0.5%.

          Also it's common for PCR tests to be done in triplicate to triple-check the results. You can obviously also take another set of samples from the person a few days later and try the test again.

          After New Zealand successfully eliminated Covid from the country, the government continued to do thousands of Covid tests per day on citizens who wanted to be tested, either because they had some cold symptoms or at random testing sites. For over a hundred days they did 1000-5000 tests per day, and not a single one of those ever tested positive. So the false-positive rate was incredibly close to zero with the tests the government was using.

          So I'm left scratching my head at your crazy statement. They did test lots of people, and they didn't get false positives, and nobody got quarantined as a result. Your imaginary situation is the exact opposite of what literally actually happened in New Zealand.

          That guy was infamous for being a nutbar and wrong about everything. He's a joke among the biological scientist community. He wrote books about how HIV wasn't the cause of AIDS, because he was nuts.

          If you adjust the methodology on any test, you'll get different outcomes. So what?
          Doing a useless test 3 times still does not determine whether someone is infectious or has an ineffective remnant left. This sounds as good as flipping a coin three times to see which result to take. You still are not taking the instruction from the creator of the PCR process. Based on Mullis, you cannot tell if there is an infectious level. I'm not sure how you work the logic out from here to say that the test is useful.

          Are you talking about Kary Mullis being nuts? How is he nuts for trying to find out what specifically to look for when testing for the agent that causes AIDS? If this is what you are talking about, you are going against the purpose of science. With science, concerning AIDS, you are supposed to ask questions and do studies to find out cause and effect scenarios. Is there a paper that solves the issue about HIV being the cause of AIDS? The problem that we have these days is that any scientist that questions the popular opinion is called a kook; this is such an easy way to short circuit the scientific discussion.
          Last edited by mikewhitney; 10-31-2020, 02:00 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            Doing a useless test 3 times still does not determine whether someone is infectious or has an ineffective remnant left. This sounds as good as flipping a coin three times to see which result to take.
            Maybe try taking a year of stats or maths at school before you worry yourself too much over these calculations. Until then the question of why 0.5 ^ 3 isn't the same as 0.005 ^ 3 will have to remain a mystery to you.

            Doing a highly accurate test is highly accurate. And if you do it three times, it's super duper highly accurate.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Maybe try taking a year of stats or maths at school before you worry yourself too much over these calculations. Until then the question of why 0.5 ^ 3 isn't the same as 0.005 ^ 3 will have to remain a mystery to you.

              Doing a highly accurate test is highly accurate. And if you do it three times, it's super duper highly accurate.
              Doing a highly accurate meaningless test is still meaningless. Study arguments and logic in a philosophy class so you can comprehend that.

              The other issue is as I understand it is that the tests only do a sampling of the DNA which does not narrow the virus down to the novel coronavirus -- but only gets a ballpark match. There is no differentiation to exclude all other viruses, so some other viruses may match as well.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                Doing a highly accurate meaningless test is still meaningless.
                Good thing it's highly accurate and not meaningless.

                The other issue is as I understand it is that the tests only do a sampling of the DNA which does not narrow the virus down to the novel coronavirus -- but only gets a ballpark match. There is no differentiation to exclude all other viruses, so some other viruses may match as well.
                Well you understand totally wrong. That's the exact opposite to how PCR tests work. They are created to specifically target the RNA or DNA of the organism of interest.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Good thing it's highly accurate and not meaningless.

                  Well you understand totally wrong. That's the exact opposite to how PCR tests work. They are created to specifically target the RNA or DNA of the organism of interest.
                  I guess you don't understand how the PCR process works. The PCR process is not the test but only a way of multiplying DNA ( or RNA that has been paired with another strand to form DNA for testing). It is the multiplied DNA that then can be tested for genes.

                  You could listen to the specialists on this. It could help you to understand things.

                  I'm just sharing this so you understand the constraints, the limits, of the testing. If you want to rely on fuzzy test results, you can do that to your own pleasure. You can listen to what the specialists say or continue to rely on your own ability (while calling the specialists kooks)

                  Comment


                  • Mike, I'm a scientist working in that field. Look up the term "PCR primer" and have a read.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post

                      You’re ability to be equally arrogant and ignorant at the same time is rather impressive.

                      I’m ‘steeped’ in the history of the British legal system so I can explain what rights are in the legal sense.
                      Great, just translate your expansive knowledge of the british legal system into something relevant.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                        Please - aids does not spread to people in the air. It requires a close exchange of bodily fluids to be transmitted. We dont typically quarantine people unless a disease is transmitted easily, typically through the air.
                        And yet some called for it. Perhaps you are too young to remember.

                        But we prosecute those who knowingly transmit AIDS, and don't prosecute those who do not.

                        Glad that's cleared up.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          Please - aids does not spread to people in the air. It requires a close exchange of bodily fluids to be transmitted. We dont typically quarantine people unless a disease is transmitted easily, typically through the air.
                          Your chances of catching the China flu through casual contact, such as walking past an infected person in a grocery store, is effectively zero -- the "Typhoid China Flu Mary" phenomenon doesn't actually exist, so this notion that healthy, non-symptomatic people should stifle themselves with a face diaper in public is silly. Even the WHO recently admitted that asymptomatic spread is very rare. It's in extended, face-to-face interactions with a symptomatic person that you need to be careful. And yet the media has gotten people so paranoid that they'll stare with fear and suspicion at any one not wearing a mask, even if that person is outside and 20-feet away from them (you should see the looks of alarm I get just walking across a parking lot).
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Your chances of catching the China flu through casual contact, such as walking past an infected person in a grocery store, is effectively zero -- the "Typhoid China Flu Mary" phenomenon doesn't actually exist, so this notion that healthy, non-symptomatic people should stifle themselves with a face diaper in public is silly. Even the WHO recently admitted that asymptomatic spread is very rare. It's in extended, face-to-face interactions with a symptomatic person that you need to be careful. And yet the media has gotten people so paranoid that they'll stare with fear and suspicion at any one not wearing a mask, even if that person is outside and 20-feet away from them (you should see the looks of alarm I get just walking across a parking lot).
                            You're wrong. Dead wrong in fact. As I said in a previous post, we have a friend whose mother died exactly that way - picking up the virus shopping in a grocery store.

                            But you're as stubborn and anti science as your idol, and so I'll not waste time reciting the facts you already have been told but refuse to believe.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Maranatha View Post

                              And yet some called for it. Perhaps you are too young to remember.

                              But we prosecute those who knowingly transmit AIDS, and don't prosecute those who do not.

                              Glad that's cleared up.
                              I remember some people calling for it, but that was when there was still concern about how it could be spread. There was misinformation then too. But eventually all came to understand you dont get aids through casual contact or without direct contact with bodily fluids.

                              You also forget that AIDS was for quite some time nearly universally fatal. So prosecuting one for knowingly transmitting could in fact havr been a murder charge.

                              And, in fact, the reality is that if we're consistent wrt prosecuting those that knowingly spread aids, we should prosecute Rand Paul for reckless endangerment over his workout in the gym after his positive covid result.
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                                ...we have a friend whose mother died exactly that way - picking up the virus shopping in a grocery store.
                                You know for certain that she contracted it simply by walking past someone was was asymptomatic? How was this determined?
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                419 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                88 responses
                                401 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X