COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)
- Thread starter baldgye
- 13,285 comments
- 645,544 views
McLaren
Premium
- 45,578
- Texas
Good question. I tried to google a bit more on the latest info, but didn't find much if anything about them in the last 3 months. Norfolk, VA is the home for Comfort. Mercy though, is actually based in San Diego, so maybe she is doing something in Portland?
It may also come down to the states having to request them (Mercy did spend time in LA according to a source) or there needing to be a major necessity for them. 1 source says Comfort treated less than 200 patients in New York when she was there, so maybe it's not seen as a necessary to redeploy them if a field hospital could potentially do the same if it becomes necessary?
Only other thing I can think of is that they can't reach the areas inland that could use them the most.
Last edited:
- 4,033
- Derbyshire, UK
- DG Silva
This has been the UK government's plan from the start - when you tell the Brits what to do when it doesn't directly benefit them, they dig their heels in and do the exact opposite. The government have always suggested, implored or pleaded, without outright imposing a ban - when they introduced fining people for entering households, it increased the amount of people going between households, not decreased it (at least, in my local area).
The Conservatives are getting enough bad tidings thrown their way at the moment, without being the government that 'took Christmas away', so they had to do the minimum they can. No one has got the guts to tell the truth though - irrespective of apparently conflicting advice - it's the general public who, desperately looking for as many loopholes as they can, spread the virus and not the government.
Please watch this short video comparing pcr to antigen by Dr Ivor Cummins
1. Mass rapid antigen testing shows the true total infection rate of the population as a whole. It was only 0.4% positive in Liverpool. That isn’t a pandemic. The PCR test cannot be relied upon to do this job of mass testing as it takes too long, is very expensive in comparison and where over 30 cycles are used produces many false positives.
2. Here you suggest that it is irrelevant how accurate testing is. Please consider that the only justification for lockdowns are test results as these determine how many “cases” there are, how many are in hospital and how many have died of it. Clearly that makes testing accuracy rather important and therefore only the best test, antigen, should be used instead of easily manipulated pcr.
3. I provided 3 links to studies on pcr test cycles producing false positives and you just described that as “cherry picking”. How many links do you need all saying the same thing ? Over 30 amplification cycles with the pcr test produces many false positives.
The antigen test is far superior to PCR, I cannot identify any logical reason to continue using PCR, unless the goal is to create false positives and thereby false cases.
- 29,353
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
"Only" 400 per 100,000 positivity rate? That's... quite high.
What?
Test results determine how many people are hospitalised with or have died from COVID-19? What?
Wow. This comment gives the game away as to what the intent of your postings here really is.
Let me spare you the trouble and tell you that we're not going there in this thread.
Say what again.
Clearly this is not the place for an open debate of any sort.
Here is Dr Mike Yeadon explaining it for you.
No doubt you will either not bother to watch it or dismiss it, as it shows how easily you have been fooled.
He says:
“I think the PCR test at present is throwing up so many false positives that in fact we are misdiagnosing the cause of deaths that are being reported. The number of deaths at the moment is normal for this time of year. So if I’m right the pandemic is fundamentally over.”
The real danger to humanity is obedient fools who don’t question authority and attack those who do.
Clearly this is not the place for an open debate of any sort.
Here is Dr Mike Yeadon explaining it for you.
No doubt you will either not bother to watch it or dismiss it, as it shows how easily you have been fooled.
He says:
“I think the PCR test at present is throwing up so many false positives that in fact we are misdiagnosing the cause of deaths that are being reported. The number of deaths at the moment is normal for this time of year. So if I’m right the pandemic is fundamentally over.”
The real danger to humanity is obedient fools who don’t question authority and attack those who do.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,353
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Anyone else here going to sit down and watch a three hour forty three minute video just on T's say-so and without a summary of any kind?
I did take a peek at Cummings' Twitter feed. There appeared to be people calling climate change a hoax and others with "President-Elect" in their usernames. Talk about being easily fooled.
I did take a peek at Cummings' Twitter feed. There appeared to be people calling climate change a hoax and others with "President-Elect" in their usernames. Talk about being easily fooled.
Last edited:
- 29,353
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Wrong.
Debate is welcome, as evinced by many threads in this section, but that doesn't mean there are no limits or that moderation is not justified.
Do not make assumptions as to what I will or will not do.
As suggested above, however, you cannot expect people to watch a 3.5 hr video, especially when it is not even clear what your point is.
A cursory glance at some of the video, however, shows that Yeadon is making some pretty extraordinary claims - 'we don't need vaccines', 'the pandemic is over', 'whatever people are dying of now is not coronavirus related'...
As Carl Sagan rightly said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I'm not seeing much of the latter.
Would you say that Yeadon is an 'authority' on the subject? Yet I'm questioning the claims he is making, but you appear to think I shouldn't be.
- 87,423
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Does this one actually have a doctorate? Only your last doctor wasn't one. He is, however, a B.Eng who hawks his diet plan as a cure for what he calls "modern illnesses".
No, you obedient fool. You should question the type of authority that's bad, not the good type.
I'm amazed how many people have suddenly become experts on PCR. It also looks like a near-perfect 1:1 grouping with the kind of people who, if they were in a zombie movie, would hide the fact they've been bitten by a zombie.
- 17,259
- United Kingdom
No, it isn't.
We should all be considering this a test run for when something more serious comes along, and so far we are failing badly. Unless people are bleeding out of their eyeballs and collapsing in the street with no notice, the same idiots, deniers and irresponsible people will continue to spout horse poop about liberty and authority, and do as they please - and when it is something serious that they're denying, that's when we're going to be in really deep ****.
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
Those that survive, yes.
- 20,975
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
- 2,677
- UK
- Outspacer
Yeah... no. We've seen that every time the the cases number rises - based on what you try to claim are insufficient, manipulated, tests - that it leads to a rise in number of hospitalisations, and then deaths. You don't even try to address that point.
Of course they are cherry picked, by searching for 'false positive'. Either you did that yourself and selected some, or more likely, you're just parroting some article you read somewhere dank.
The paper talks about "false positives for infectious covid" not "false positives for covid". For the latter, the error is very small - the PCR test is rarely positive without someone having the virus to some extent. Just because some of those are not infectious at that moment doesn't mean it is not useful data statistically.
Let's just assume for a moment that an 'improved' test would result in, say, half the number of positives. It's only a measurement, so it wouldn't change the number of hospital admissions. Therefore, any trigger threshold for restrictions based on a worrying level of cases by positive test would have to halve. Oh wait, that doesn't change anything, so as I said, it's irrelevant.
Even a month makes him look a fool, with deaths now well above normal for this time of year. As predicted by the rise in positive PCR test results at the time he was saying that.
Last edited:
Barra333
Premium
- 6,542
- London, ON
- barra333
Bullpoop. A quick search of 'uk excess deaths' got me all of this info.
This one comes from The Economist (go to the site and you can hover over each box for a number). The data finishes the week of 6-12 November, but the situation only got worse since then. For example, the North West is showing 40% excess deaths (expected 1,390, actual 1,950), the North East 34%, and so on.
If you think The Economist is evil, then let's try the official government stats...
From elsewhere on that page, 0 is the 5 year average. A quick look at this shows that a lot of people are dying in hospital right now.
Last edited:
Seriously, it’s like you guys enjoy being terrified by completely normal hospitalisation and death numbers. Do you enjoy horror movies ?
As I said, this obviously is not a place to openly discuss reality, you are all too far gone down the illusion trap, due to not looking at all available information.
When you’ve watched Dr. Mike Yeadon, who is Ex Pfizer, talk on it for 3.5 hours, then you will have more information upon which to base your opinions and decisions. Until then, you are limiting the information that you use and are therefore under informed. You don’t know better than Mike Yeadon, do you ? Thought so. Goodbye, no point trying to show you the truth, have fun obeying your programming like little obedient cowards, the most dangerous form of human life to my children’s future.
As I said, this obviously is not a place to openly discuss reality, you are all too far gone down the illusion trap, due to not looking at all available information.
When you’ve watched Dr. Mike Yeadon, who is Ex Pfizer, talk on it for 3.5 hours, then you will have more information upon which to base your opinions and decisions. Until then, you are limiting the information that you use and are therefore under informed. You don’t know better than Mike Yeadon, do you ? Thought so. Goodbye, no point trying to show you the truth, have fun obeying your programming like little obedient cowards, the most dangerous form of human life to my children’s future.
Last edited:
Barra333
Premium
- 6,542
- London, ON
- barra333
Normal is something that hovers around zero on the bottom graph in my post. There is nothing 'normal' about those tall blue lines. Also, I don't think it is normal to have ICUs all over the world at full capacity.
I don't care what about the technicalities of the testing are, 56 free ICU beds for 10million people is not normal, especially when they are suffering the same thing.
- 87,423
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'm sure it does, but when you've reached the point where only other people's videos can express your thoughts for you it's probably time to abandon any concept of being an independent thinker.
Incidentally, have you looked outside lately? Do you think all those people in full lockdown and tier three areas doing whatever they please are being obedient?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,022
- Mile High City
Number of deaths for the time of year is not an appropriate figure to track (regardless of the fact that it is high). COVID precautions have resulted in less driving, and help restrict flu transmission (CDC is reporting unusually low flu activity right now). We can't necessarily expect that "normal" for deaths should still hold this year. It's one of the laziest ways I can imagine looking at the data.
What matters, for understanding the pandemic, is the source of statistics. Namely, is the source CORONAVIRUS.
What matters, for understanding the pandemic, is the source of statistics. Namely, is the source CORONAVIRUS.
Last edited:
- 5,670
- Ulricehamn
- 2,677
- UK
- Outspacer
Lazy? No idea why you bring that in. Maybe it is, but deaths has the distinct advantage of the total numbers being absolute and accurate, and is of course the main thing that restrictions are attempting to reduce.
That other deaths are down slightly this year only adds to how many excess deaths there are due to COVID, however, since that difference is small compared to COVID deaths (and mostly within year-to-year variation) it's reasonable to ignore it for the most part.
What else could it be? For all these peoples talk of false positives and herd immunity (now there's a paradox!) etc etc, I haven't yet heard any remotely viable alternate explanation for the excess deaths.
Similar threads
