Corona Virus Treatment

From what I can work out his thinking (and it certainly seems plausible) that the accuracy of any testing done outside of a hospital is highly inaccurate, and therefore throwing up a lot of false positives. Indeed, Dominic Rabb himself admitted that the tests were only 7% accurate.

Pillar 1 tests (those done in hospital, on people who are already ill) are much more accurate not least because they are taken and go directly to the lab.

Pillar 2 tests take longer to get to the lab, are not taken in ideal conditions and therefore are open to contamination, and therefore give lots of false positives.

The common cold and the flu are both coronaviruses - they may not be SARS-Cov2, but they are coronaviruses and as such they can trigger a positive result.

Dr Yeadon is evidencing his thoughts by comparing the number of tests, number of positives and the number of fatalities - tests and positives have risen dramatically, but fatalities haven't followed suit.

I see your argument that a false positive is better than a false negative in as much that it could be viewed as a 'safe side' failure, but the reality is that those figures - - that data is being used to shut down businesses and put people out of work, and also see people denied treatments that they need.

I have said before on this thread that the tail is wagging the dog here and we are not getting a true picture of what is going on - - it would seem that the governments around the world are so scared of being accused of getting it wrong that they have gone into panic mode and are doing just that... if we tested people that were ill, offered them the very best treatment we can, and then record the positives/negatives out of that, it would give a truer ratio - - saves throwing all that money away on tests on people that are not and have not been ill.

 

I think the bankruptcies are fairly likely, with a hell of a lot of economic damage done. We will no doubt bounce back at some stage, but the ride is about to get a whole lot rougher as businesses are hitting the wall putting people out of work. Drug and alcohol abuse may increase - alcohol, certainly, however I would think we will see more deaths from suicides (over debt and money) and also poverty driven (cold, damp homes, reduced hygiene etc) as folks simply don't have the money to house themselves or keep their heads above water.

 

Erm... maybe. The trouble is that they are doing what they are doing in spite of data and other scientists pointing out the errors/issues and are carrying on regardless. There a gaping chasms of irregularities in the data sets, particularly when other respiratory illnesses and other morbidities are taken into account. So no, we cannot be wholly sure that there is not a deliberate undertone because we are not being told the truth in full.

 

I genuinely don't know @Freddy - I think my wording was very poor there (as usual), all I know is that there is a hell of a lot that we don't seem to be being told. It could simply be that Boris couldn't lie straight in bed if he tried, so lying is a default setting for him.

Agreed, and that is the bit that makes no sense - - but you must agree that we are not being told the full truth here?

Ooh, fair point - I recalled the 7% and my understanding that it was to do with the accuracy overall. It could very well be that I got them the wrong way up.

All I can go by is the fact that Dr Yeadon seems to be one of many, educated voices who are questioning thngs and being utterly disregarded - - why? Surely science, especially when something is new and unknown territory, is exactly the opposite? Surely science is considering all scenarios and investigating them - not a we're right, you are wrong attitude?

 

Put the obviously bonkers ones further down the queue of course, but why continue apace whilst ignoring others (not bonkers) whilst at the same time your own data is not making sense? Economists have their part to play in the bigger picture, but not the science.