Chink in the Armor - The Vaccinated Are Worried and Scientists Don’t Have Answers

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Lots of instances of mixed results in the NFL's COVID testing regimen last year, and I presume that with the money at stake with games being played, this was not some fly-by-night test operation at a 24/7 walk-in clinic.

So, was it antigen testing or PCR testing which gave the apparent false positives? I don't see an answer there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Lots of instances of mixed results in the NFL's COVID testing regimen last year, and I presume that with the money at stake with games being played, this was not some fly-by-night test operation at a 24/7 walk-in clinic.

So, was it antigen testing or PCR testing which gave the apparent false positives? I don't see an answer there.

Sorry Phage, you'll have to take that up with the NFL.

If you look at the addendum I ( belatedly) tacked on to my post, the very first bullet point ("Molecular tests for COVID-19 diagnosis (PCR tests)") in the NFL's testing protocol says PCR. I have no idea how they prioritize the diverse testing methods.

No interest in getting lost in the minutiae and semantic weeds with you on this. A multi-billion dollar organization had numerous cases of flip-flopping test results last year. Maybe it was attributable to RT-PCR, maybe antigen, possibly both.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

If you look at the addendum I ( belatedly) tacked on to my post, the very first bullet point ("Molecular tests for COVID-19 diagnosis (PCR tests)") in the NFL's testing protocol says PCR.

I saw that. But it also says POC testing is used. That can be antigen, antibody, or PCR testing.

Maybe it was attributable to RT-PCR, maybe antigen, possibly both.

So, do you have a more definitive example to provide before trashing PCR testing?

a reply to: Phage

Phage....where did I "trash" the RT-PCR test??

It has acknowledged issues in discerning between COVID and influenza. This is why the CDC is replacing it with a new PCR test at the end of the year, which I've already supplied a link to. I merely made mention of this shortcoming.

Even so, having *some* test for COVID was better than none, even if it was inaccurate in some instances. Even I don't dispute that.

ANYWAY if we can back on topic, please, which is the acknowledgement in the Bloomberg News piece that some experts have expressed dismay about the number of "breakthrough" cases and serious illness exhibited in some vaccinated subjects.

This thread is about a rebuttal of mandatory treatment of young, low-risk individuals based on incomplete/fluctuating data of cases. If you want to nitpick about the PCR, then maybe this is best done in a new thread.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Something doesn't add up.

Got to be the hospitals reporting... Do you report COVID or flu when someone dies? Or maybe they didn't even report.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Something doesn't add up.

Got to be the hospitals reporting... Do you report COVID or flu when someone dies? Or maybe they didn't even report.

There were all sorts of irregularities in reporting.

Someone posted a video of an occupational therapist from a hospital in Phage's neck of the woods that claimed that admissions for patients with acute primary issues (stroke, heart attack) were reported as COVID cases if they tested positive. That is a very subjective verdict IMO, because on the one hand, yes they have COVID, but they went to the hospital for a more serious malady that presented, besides COVID. Were they even being assessed as symptomatic or not?

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

It has acknowledged issues in discerning between COVID and influenza.

The first COVID PCR tests could not detect influenza at all. They only test for genetic material from SARS-COV-2. That is the point of new tests which can test for both at the same time.

This thread is about a rebuttal of mandatory treatment of young, low-risk individuals based on incomplete/fluctuating data of cases.

Vaccination is not treatment. And you can choose whether or not to be vaccinated. Sometimes you have to choose between two things.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

It has acknowledged issues in discerning between COVID and influenza.

The COVID PCR test cannot detect influenza at all. That is the point of new tests which can test for both at the same time.

This thread is about a rebuttal of mandatory treatment of young, low-risk individuals based on incomplete/fluctuating data of cases.

Vaccination is not treatment. And you can choose whether or not to be vaccinated. Choice usually involves choosing one thing over another.

Tell yourself whatever you want. A widely used test from the pandemic is being replaced. I see that the "fact checkers" are out in force to reinforce your narrative.

The influenza test is ALSO a PCR test and uses some of the same reagents and chemicals as the COVID RT-PCR test. Uh-oh. Depending on the order you use the tests, COVID vs influenza, you might get inconsistent results. This is likely why a new test is being delivered, to avoid the potential confusion from administering multiple tests.

The Pfizer/Moderna products are NOT vaccines (attenuated or dead virus particles) in the traditional sense, but based on messenger RNA that signal your body to produce spike proteins. Gene therapy, as advertised. Again, call them treatments, or vaccines, or gene therapy, whatever satisfies you.

Again I implore you to remain on-topic

You seemed to suggest to another member that they should "go live in the hills" if they didn't wish to be vaccinated.

Are you really thinking along those lines?

Do they goose step in Hawaii?

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Depending on the order you use the tests, COVID vs influenza, you might get inconsistent results.

No. There is no mistaking SARS-COV-2 genetics for Influenza genetics.

The Pfizer/Moderna products are NOT vaccines

A vaccine is meant to induce an immune response without becoming infected with the disease. Both vaccines do this.

You seemed to suggest to another member that they should "go live in the hills" if they didn't wish to be vaccinated.

No, that had to do with wearing a piece of cloth on your face. Living in groups has advantages, and responsibilities.

Do they goose step in Hawaii?

No. We do the hula here.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
a reply to: sraven

Regarding statistics....ponder this one for a bit.

In 2019-20 flue season, the US experienced somewhere between 24k to 62k deaths from influenza (flu)

In 2020-21, the US experienced an esitmated 453 flu deaths.

The "r naught" measure of contagious tendency of influenza is between 1-2.

The "r naught" measure of COVID is between 2-3.

Couple that with the CDC's sunsetting of the "real time" PCR test (in favor of a more precise COVID test) that had been used for the bulk of the last 12+ months.

Vast numbers of influenza cases were likely miss-diagnosed as COVID last year.

The data from this whole deal is completely FUBAR.

Yep.
However, most of the fearful out there can't absorb that
and so you are left with the raw stats they provide.

And my point is that even using their numbers, 90 percent are not affected enough to warrant getting a diagnosis
and survival of the numbers they provide is 99 percent.

a reply to: Scrutinizing

You are spot on with your post. FDA knows the side affects. Why are they allowing this to go further when hardly any vaccines would survive two days of trials based on past FDA decisions?

The danger with the PCR test has always been how sensitive they had it cranked up.

Yes. It can tell you if COVID genetic material is present in the sample, but it cannot tell you if that means there is an active disease process going on. Not every sample carrying SARS-COV-2 genetic material in it is a sample from someone with COVID. The more cycles you run the PCR test looking to find that material in your sample, the more likely it is that you are finding mere fragments of RNA, not enough to have caused anyone to be ill or contagious.

So the danger is and always has been that people with the flu were being tested for COVID with that ridiculously sensitive PCR test, and it would turn up positive. Thus, they would be told they had COVID when really they had influenza. The symptoms of the two being very similar in the early stage disease.

Why test for flu if the COVID test returns positive?

a reply to: ketsuko

Why test for flu if the COVID test returns positive?

Which is exactly the point of the new tests. No need to test for both separately.

It's not either/or, it's and/or.

a reply to: Phage

But my point being that it was and is entirely possible that plenty of people with the flu were told they had COVID too.

a reply to: ketsuko

Possibly. But in that case a hell of a lot more people died because flu in 2020 than in recent years.

a reply to: Phage

You all need to watch out. Pay Attention Everybody, Paige has been here a very long time. I mean, she basically is ATS, just ask her lol

a reply to: DreadKnock

Phage. I meant Phage. Oh crud. Anyways- that chick.

a reply to: DreadKnock

It's Phage (look it up).

And I am male.

OK, but perhaps deranged. Probably not sick with CV yet. Your posts suggests a sad person with a sick mind. So, I would hesitate to categorize too soon there.

a reply to: Xtrozero

But we really cant accept number from liars can we? when did we decide these liars wanted to share true statistics to the media and then they report them accurately.

TRUST of these people is officially GONE! Gone I tell you. Trust for an old ATSer we used to believe is GONE too.