Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

Hardyn wrote:

A study that shows the sensitivity of some of the antibody tests as low as 68%.

It shows the results from their(virtus) tests and two other tests(Abbott and Roche).
Two out of how many?

I see it hasn't been peer reviewed either.

ACitizenErased wrote:

Thank god immunity isn't just antibodies then.

What do vaccines create?

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. We are trying to avoid this cyclical response.

The more likely scenario being proposed is more of a modified Level 3 for the long term, with very limited - in the order of a single digit number of days - exemptions which will apply on specific dates, only to facilitate some semblance of normal family celebrations. This will not include large gatherings, the likes of Christmas parties or outings etc, nor an open, indefinite period of weeks or months of this status.

The goal is to achieve a steady state level of restrictions which can facilitate a handful of days when effectively the rules dont apply. As long as these number of days are below a threshold, and Level 3, or localised time limited targeted higher restrictions, they will not have a deleterious effect on our management of the chains of transmission.

Maybe have one night a year where all crime is legal as well.......

kippy wrote: »

2 things.
1. Christmas won't be like any other Christmas we have ever had. There will be plenty restrictions "rightfully" in place and people will be expected to abide by them in order to reduce risk. So it won't be a "normal" christmas.
2. What happened in September/early october were people breaking the regulations in place at the time. (Not everyone and not everyone who got the disease broke the rules but enough did)

I've stated this before, but it down to individuals and their actions as to what happens with respect to tighter and looser restrictions.

Yes - but realistically - with the best of intentions and with the best of measures in place, if you allow people to socialise at Christmas (even in limited form) it invariably means that cases will increase and at least some people will die who would not have otherwise died if lockdown was simply maintained throughout December. Let’s be realistic about it.

So if you advocate allowing a loosening of restrictions at Christmas, then you are saying (even if you don’t want to admit it) that the lives of at least some people is a price worth paying to have Christmas. And look, that’s fine, that’s more or less how we have always lived our lives. We tacitly accept the lives of people lost in, say, road accidents as a price worth paying for us to be able to use cars.

A lot of time is spent on these forums reading criticisms by pro-lockdown people of the moral deficiency of those who speak out against the restrictions — that they are heartless people who don’t care about people dying. It’s just interesting to probe the fact that very often they are simply just unaware of their own acceptance of other people dying for the sake of normality.

ruth123456 wrote: »

They closed Friday 23rd, 10 days ago

8 days, Sunday School!

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes - but realistically - with the best of intentions and with the best of measures in place, if you allow people to socialise at Christmas (even in limited form) it invariably means that cases will increase and at least some people will die who would not have otherwise died if lockdown was simply maintained throughout December. Let’s be realistic about it.

So if you advocate allowing a loosening of restrictions at Christmas, then you are saying (even if you don’t want to admit it) that the lives of at least some people is a price worth paying to have Christmas. And look, that’s fine, that’s more or less how we have always lived our lives. We tacitly accept the lives of people lost in, say, road accidents as a price worth paying for us to be able to use cars.

A lot of time is spent on these forums reading criticisms by pro-lockdown people of the moral deficiency of those who speak out against the restrictions — that they are heartless people who don’t care about people dying. It’s just interesting to probe the fact that very often they are simply just unaware of their own acceptance of other people dying for the sake of normality.

I amn't pro lockdown and in fact I don't believe we have had a lockdown in its strictest sense in any of this.
There is a difference in flouting the regulations/ignoring them altogether which leads to situations whereby community spread is out of control and people following regulations which should lead to relatively stable numbers.
There was a period, late June to mid/late September where deaths were low. There's no reason numbers and cases cannot be in those figures again.

Look, there is a balancing act to be found but suggesting that flouting of the regulations is in any way acceptable is just plain wrong.

And I am aware that many people get this through very little fault of their own or others.

Hardyn wrote:

Well if your friends were tested it was likely using one of them.

My friends are all in the US. I don't know what was used to test them. All have good medical insurance though and would have been tested at top private hospitals.

Deleted User wrote:

Top private hospitals don’t get extra sensitive test kits. They just charge extra sensitive prices

I'm well aware of how they work as I lived there.
I'm just sharing information because the poster might have assumed they were in Ireland.

eagle eye wrote: »

So then your answer is no?

It's certainly wasn't. I'm not sure why you're so aggressive. You asked and rather than me posting seven or eight links I politely suggested the search that would give what you wanted and explain it better than paraphrasing it.

I've no skin in this game one way or the other. Only trying to help. You can go find somebody else to argue with.

Deleted User wrote: »

My comment was not on the individual paper but on the trend on this site to use peer reviewed / not peer reviewed as proof/ disproof of the veracity of a report, and not judge each paper on its merit. Of course a peer reviewed paper hold more weight, but it doesn’t necessarily make it right. Lots of links to mutually contradictory peer reviewed papers are posted daily. They can’t all be right. They can all have merit in advancing scientific knowledge however.

This is a classic peer reviewed Covid paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720363592