OT: WHO changes COVID testing

[Drebin]

There's plenty of medical evidence that flu isn't as contagious as COVID. I knew 8 months ago that we weren't going to have a flu season this winter because of the measures we were taking (and got mocked on this board for saying so, but I was right).

He didn't say it wasn't as contagious. He said it wasn't nearly as contagious. Big difference. And there's also some medical opinion out there that it's not as contagious as originally thought. So the point is that his opinion is not conclusive nor quantified fact. And this is the biggest issue with all of this - people offer opinions as fact before knowing answers conclusively, and then when the facts on the ground change, the goalposts move.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

Won't change the important figure. deaths.. 400,000 and counting. number of positives are just a thing.. but deaths, not so much.

 

[mstateglfr]

He didn't say it wasn't as contagious. He said it wasn't nearly as contagious. Big difference.

View attachment 19251

Big difference? How big a difference...10%? 20%? 70%?

 

[thekimmer]

I give up. Tell me who changes covid testing?

PCR positive is no longer = Covid. You are not Covid now unless you get a second test to confirm it, and are presenting clinical symptoms. How much Does it cost to get a test?

Released 20/21 Jan 2020

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05

nm

 

[ckDOG]

It's very easy to understand

Yeah, I really just dont understand why its a big deal that this was announced yesterday compared to a month ago, two weeks ago, or next week. There have been multiple comments about the timing of it all and how thats such ********. I dont follow.
To me, this news doesnt help Biden more now than it would have two weeks ago, a month ago, or next week.

Furthermore, doesnt this 'help' leaders in other countries too? Its the WHO's announcement, not the CDC's announcement. This goes back to the claims that covid would 'end' the day after the election as if it was somehow a US issue that the entire rest of the world is just rolling along with.

The 17 your feelings crowd is just throwing a hissy.

View attachment 19252

 

[msstate7]

Delete

 

[dog12]

Well, it is interesting that they announce this on literally the day Biden became President. Maybe that's just a coincidence though.

Agree. That is interesting.

In the world of politics, there's no such thing as a "coincidence."

 

[johnson86-1]

Yeah, I really just dont understand why its a big deal that this was announced yesterday compared to a month ago, two weeks ago, or next week. There have been multiple comments about the timing of it all and how thats such ********. I dont follow.
To me, this news doesnt help Biden more now than it would have two weeks ago, a month ago, or next week.

It doesn't make a big difference now as opposed to two weeks ago. It would be a little on the nose to announce something like that on inauguration day.

Furthermore, doesnt this 'help' leaders in other countries too? Its the WHO's announcement, not the CDC's announcement. This goes back to the claims that covid would 'end' the day after the election as if it was somehow a US issue that the entire rest of the world is just rolling along with.

China is not as worried about leadership of other countries on top of other countries not moving the needle like the US does in general. But aside from that, the US is the only developed country I know of that had China hawk in power in an election against not just a China dove, but one whose family had taken money from CCP aligned entities. Controlling powers in China and Iran are possibly the two biggest winners in the US's election. The WHO has already shown they are subject to excessive influence from China in handling Covid. Anytime that WHO does anything favorable to China, there are going to be questions as to whether it was just a coincidence or a result of pressure from the CCP.

 

[johnson86-1]

But those numbers will be affect now right?

If you die from falling off a roof and only have 1 positive test, it’s now due to falling off a roof and not Covid.

I think excess mortality numbers are just determined by a projection of how many people you would expect to die in a given year based on population and past mortality rates versus how many people actually die. If we have a significant number of excess deaths during a pandemic, you would assume a significant number of those deaths are from COVID. And in this case it would be backed up by the fact that almost all of the excess deaths are in older age groups. Middle age groups are basically experiencing a normal year and younger age groups are actually experiencing slightly fewer deaths than would be expected. Some of that is probably just normal variation, but some of it is probably due to fewer car related fatalities. I also saw somebody claim that suidicdes for high school age students have actually gone down (presumably because not being subject to high school and bullying or peer pressure or whatever is good for their mental health) and suicide rates for adulst have been significantly elevated. No clue if that's accurate or not.

 

[msstate7]

I think excess mortality numbers are just determined by a projection of how many people you would expect to die in a given year based on population and past mortality rates versus how many people actually die. If we have a significant number of excess deaths during a pandemic, you would assume a significant number of those deaths are from COVID. And in this case it would be backed up by the fact that almost all of the excess deaths are in older age groups. Middle age groups are basically experiencing a normal year and younger age groups are actually experiencing slightly fewer deaths than would be expected. Some of that is probably just normal variation, but some of it is probably due to fewer car related fatalities. I also saw somebody claim that suidicdes for high school age students have actually gone down (presumably because not being subject to high school and bullying or peer pressure or whatever is good for their mental health) and suicide rates for adulst have been significantly elevated. No clue if that's accurate or not.

It'll be interesting to see what excess deaths look like over the next year. Seems covid just sped up a lot of deaths that most likely occur in a 1-2 year range anyway.

 

[Mobile Bay]

So the PCR test are just crap?

Beyond about 25 cycles they no longer have to specificity to distinguish between covid 19 and any other genetic material. Most tests have been run 35-60 cycles. This is why it has such a high false positivity rate.


Funny how they make this change the day after inauguration.

 

[Mobile Bay]

Won't change the important figure. deaths.. 400,000 and counting. number of positives are just a thing.. but deaths, not so much.

Compared to the 900,000 that will die due to lockdown related issues.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

 

[Mobile Bay]

Shhh....only science that pushes a narrative is allowed. There's no room for actual science here.

In my work I have been involved in a lot of government "science". I have done this with the Corps of Engineers, EPA, and U.S. Public health.

In every case some bureaucrat decides the outcome and then data is collected to support it. Data that disagrees with the outcome is ignored.

 

[dog12]

- It was mentioned that this was released because of a new president.
- I pointed out that the WHO doesnt simply follow or do what a president elect wants.
- that was met with a half dozen general consipiracy claims.
- you point out that it is interesting the announcement was made on election day and that it could be coincidence. I agree that the timing was odd and mention that i even said as much earlier in the day.
- I then admit that I dont understand why the release on election day is such a big issue since it would be no different than it it were released a week ago or a week from now. If the WHO had changed their policy a week ago, what would be different?...people would still claim conspiracy. If the WHO had changed their policy a week from now, what would be different?...people would still claim conspiracy.
- you now accuse me of being intentionally disingenuous. I am not. Why the 17 would I? Also, you went from 'maybe just a coincidence' to 'the WHO manipulated this to benefit Biden' in a pretty quick time.

Would this have no benefitted Biden if it had been released on December 15th? January 4th? January 17th? I dont see why it would benefit him any more or any less had it been released those days vs yesterday.

Your point has some validity. If WHO had announced this 3 days ago (i.e., when Trump was President), it wouldn't really make that much of a difference . . . at least not to me.

I would assume that whenever WHO is announcing a policy change, they consider the timing of that announcement and its effect on others at that particular time.

Do you think Biden's inauguration was a factor in the timing of WHO's announcement?

Like you said previously, WHO could have made the announcement on January 17th . . . but they didn't. Instead, they chose to make the announcement on January 20.

I certainly don't think there's any deep conspiracy behind the timing of WHO's announcement.

However, there were many people and organizations whom did not want Trump to get credited with anything positive while he was President. Those people and organizations worked hard at preventing that sort of thing.

So . . . instead of announcing on January 17 (or before), WHO announces on January 20 and avoids any sort of tie-in with President Trump.

 

[Mobile Bay]

Did anyone who is recognized as an authority say they were garbage publicly before now? I have not seen that stated before by anyone deemed credible.

Yes, but nobody reported it.

https://twitter.com/jimgris/status/1326518250386063361?lang=en

There is Dr. Fauci saying it.

 

[Apoplectic_Objurgator]

So the WHO reports to/follows what the US President wants?

How stupid can you be? Do you think saban talks to the bagman? Do you think Pruitt chats with the fry guy?

 

[BulldogBillyCrash]

So the WHO reports to/follows what the US President wants?

Man ask a valid, yet sarcastic because of course they don’t, question and gets downvoted to hell

More time= more research=Changes to policies

boy you good ole confederate ccuck boys on here ain’t worth a 17

 

[Apoplectic_Objurgator]

Agree. That is interesting.

In the world of politics, there's no such thing as a "coincidence."

Took the words off my finger tips - if someone hasn’t figured this out already they are a moron

 

[paindonthurt_]

Take the L and shut up. Please.

 

[engie]

Yeah, I really just dont understand why its a big deal that this was announced yesterday compared to a month ago, two weeks ago, or next week. There have been multiple comments about the timing of it all and how thats such ********. I dont follow.
To me, this news doesnt help Biden more now than it would have two weeks ago, a month ago, or next week.

Furthermore, doesnt this 'help' leaders in other countries too? Its the WHO's announcement, not the CDC's announcement. This goes back to the claims that covid would 'end' the day after the election as if it was somehow a US issue that the entire rest of the world is just rolling along with.

You have been cautious and repetitive in what you have used as hypothetical dates. Why is that? No it makes no difference in the three dates you like using as hypotheticals. They could have chosen any date after a confirmed Biden victory to produce the same result. Which will be much lower total cases going forward and some beautifully improving looking graphs which will give the average idiot the impression that Biden accomplished more than he actually did via a move of the goalposts. Which I'm absolutely positive you already understood and needed no explanation for. Ostensibly moving the goalposts on the exact date he is sworn in provides for a much cleaner reset point though to start showing immediate improvement where absolutely none of it is under Trump's watch.

The more honest hypothetical is why didn't they come with this 6 months ago when everyone already knew a whole bunch of the testing was a crapshoot? I think we all know why they didn't.

 

[Bill Shankly]

This is why you get mocked endlessly on this board. You make three or four assertions within a four sentence paragraph as medical fact. There is no conclusive medical evidence that the flu "is not nearly" as contagious as covid. I mean, how do you even quantify "is not nearly"? 10%? 20%? 70%?

Yes, there is. That information is out there and proven. I'm sure you can find some "science" somewhere that you are willing to understand that says otherwise. Heck you shouldn't even need science right now on this. All you have to do is observe and THINK. I'm just absolutely crushed I get mocked on this board, crushed I tell you.

 

[Bill Shankly]

There's plenty of medical evidence that flu isn't as contagious as COVID. I knew 8 months ago that we weren't going to have a flu season this winter because of the measures we were taking (and got mocked on this board for saying so, but I was right).

YEP. They didn't have much of one down under either. This ain't rocket science.

 

[Bill Shankly]

He didn't say it wasn't as contagious. He said it wasn't nearly as contagious. Big difference. And there's also some medical opinion out there that it's not as contagious as originally thought. So the point is that his opinion is not conclusive nor quantified fact. And this is the biggest issue with all of this - people offer opinions as fact before knowing answers conclusively, and then when the facts on the ground change, the goalposts move.

People also refuse to use what little common sense they have. It doesn't take much to observe the COVID rates and the flu rates and draw your own conclusion. The same thing happened in the southern hemisphere winter. Shaking my head.

 

[Bill Shankly]

View attachment 19251

Big difference? How big a difference...10%? 20%? 70%?

slow clap

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Hey L4, don’t you have a life to risk at high school sporting events?

 

[Bill Shankly]

It'll be interesting to see what excess deaths look like over the next year. Seems covid just sped up a lot of deaths that most likely occur in a 1-2 year range anyway.

It may not make that much of a difference to you, but then you aint dead.

 

[M R DAWGS]

Interesting enough, apparently the “science” say that only medical grade masks work in Germany. (There have been a ton of studies in the past that showed cloth masks did nothing for the flu fwiw). They are blaming it on the new variant, but as you can see from their numbers, the mandates and fines have had no noticeable impact.

Can we be far behind on mandating this? Follow the science******

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...mandates-medical-grade-masks/?sh=5e8adcd32596

I’ve been saying this since the beginning. Only level 3 or N95 masks actually protect the wearer. Cloth masks don’t do sh**.

https://forums.sixpackspeak.com/showthread.php?212546-Masks-what-where-to-buy

 

[Bill Shankly]

Hey L4, don’t you have a life to risk at high school sporting events?

Haven't been to one since football season. Being outside 20 yards away from the nearest person, which is what I am able to do with what I do at football games, isn't a risk. You can't seem to get it through your head what I told you about that. THAT is no surprise. I'm not about to go to an indoor event, period.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I’m still upset you wouldn’t come to my Christmas party.

 

[Bill Shankly]

I’ve been saying this since the beginning. Only level 3 or N95 masks actually protect the wearer. Cloth masks don’t do sh**.

And people have been saying from the beginning that it's about protecting people FROM the wearer. Go sneeze in a cloth mask and see if it stops a bunch of crap on the inside. What is it with the it's 100% or it's no good crowd.

 

[Bill Shankly]

I’m still upset you wouldn’t come to my Christmas party.

I'm not.

 

[Villagedawg]

PCR positive is no longer = Covid. You are not Covid now unless you get a second test to confirm it

This is not what the release says, is it? It says that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed and if you have a weak positive using PCR and it doesn't match presenting symptoms, a retest should be done using the same or another type test and consider that along with other factors in diagnosing someone.
"Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information."

Not quite the conspiracy some on here are trying to make it out to be.

 

[Bill Shankly]

You have been cautious and repetitive in what you have used as hypothetical dates. Why is that? No it makes no difference in the three dates you like using as hypotheticals. They could have chosen any date after a confirmed Biden victory to produce the same result. Which will be much lower total cases going forward and some beautifully improving looking graphs which will give the average idiot the impression that Biden accomplished more than he actually did via a move of the goalposts. Which I'm absolutely positive you already understood and needed no explanation for. Ostensibly moving the goalposts on the exact date he is sworn in provides for a much cleaner reset point though to start showing immediate improvement where absolutely none of it is under Trump's watch.

The more honest hypothetical is why didn't they come with this 6 months ago when everyone already knew a whole bunch of the testing was a crapshoot? I think we all know why they didn't.

Is this really news to you? Good lord that info has been out there for months. Nothing changed with that announcement.

 

[Bill Shankly]

This is not what the release says, is it? It says that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed and if you have a weak positive using PCR and it doesn't match presenting symptoms, a retest should be done using the same or another type test and consider that along with other factors in diagnosing someone.
"Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information."

Not quite the conspiracy some on here are trying to make it out to be.

EXACTLY. The OP asserted something that the release did NOT say. It is now accepted as gospel here though. SHEESH.

 

[mstateglfr]

Your point has some validity. If WHO had announced this 3 days ago (i.e., when Trump was President), it wouldn't really make that much of a difference . . . at least not to me.

I would assume that whenever WHO is announcing a policy change, they consider the timing of that announcement and its effect on others at that particular time.

Do you think Biden's inauguration was a factor in the timing of WHO's announcement?

Like you said previously, WHO could have made the announcement on January 17th . . . but they didn't. Instead, they chose to make the announcement on January 20.

I certainly don't think there's any deep conspiracy behind the timing of WHO's announcement.

However, there were many people and organizations whom did not want Trump to get credited with anything positive while he was President. Those people and organizations worked hard at preventing that sort of thing.

So . . . instead of announcing on January 17 (or before), WHO announces on January 20 and avoids any sort of tie-in with President Trump.

Sure, I could accept the idea that the WHO chose to release it yesterday since Biden was sworn in that day. Its petty and seems dangerous since they are dealing with medical recommendations, but I could see it happening out of spite by someone who actually has the power to decide when to release it.

Like you said though- the deep conspiracy **** is where I havent jumped on board. So much of this thread is filled with 'think about it' and 'connect it all' comments. Its just nuts.

 

[engie]

Is this really news to you? Good lord that info has been out there for months. Nothing changed with that announcement.

Except the official case count... which will presumably be cut in half on the new basis.

 

[mstateglfr]

You have been cautious and repetitive in what you have used as hypothetical dates. Why is that? No it makes no difference in the three dates you like using as hypotheticals. They could have chosen any date after a confirmed Biden victory to produce the same result. Which will be much lower total cases going forward and some beautifully improving looking graphs which will give the average idiot the impression that Biden accomplished more than he actually did via a move of the goalposts. Which I'm absolutely positive you already understood and needed no explanation for. Ostensibly moving the goalposts on the exact date he is sworn in provides for a much cleaner reset point though to start showing immediate improvement where absolutely none of it is under Trump's watch.

The more honest hypothetical is why didn't they come with this 6 months ago when everyone already knew a whole bunch of the testing was a crapshoot? I think we all know why they didn't.

Have I been cautious with my hypothetical dates? I dont know how I could be cautious or wanton with them...they are dates. If Ive been consistent, its just because Im awesome at remembering. But ironically, I dont really know the dates Ive cited. I used a week from now because its shortly after the inauguration but not too far out. I used a week before for the same reason. I mentioned earlier in January between new years and the capitol shitshow, and then mentioned a month ago since its pre christmas.
I guess thats all cautious, but is that bad of me to do? I wouldnt say Dec 25th because thatd be odd to release info on Christmas for the world to see.

If a UN organization held this until yesterday to manipulate numbers starting on Biden's 1st day in office, then that is pathetic. Not sure why a UN health organization would sit on health news for 2 months- that seems shameful.
...or maybe the release doesnt say what so many here claim it says and all this isnt the game changer that its claimed to be.

 

[ckDOG]

That's a bit dramatic

All the hysteria with covid. Yes, I know it can be serious and good people have died. I become disillusioned when this kind of crap happens. If the medical community knew these things were junk, they should’ve been telling people to discount their results a long time ago. Instead, people with no symptoms were being forced to quarantine along with those who had been in close contact with them.
Also, the organization that approved the use of this test also just approved a vaccine that was developed in record time. It was developed not by one company, which would be damn near miraculous in this amount of time, but by 3 maybe more. That’s ********. “Well they approved bogus tests, but they wouldn’t approve bogus vaccines.” For those of you not skeptical of the lightning fast development of this vaccine, please go work in a pharma plant and find out how many drugs/vaccines/etc. get shutdown by the FDA for very minor things. And if they are so confident of its effectiveness and safety, why do you have to be monitored after receiving the vaccine? Don’t worry, the FDA/CDC wouldn’t lie to or mislead you...again.

mRna tech had been in development for a long time - it can be applied to many viruses once you map code. R&D didn't begin this year. The approvals certainly happened faster than otherwise would due to pandemic, but risks are acceptable in an emergency situation. But comparing the vaccine development to the same process as the crap tests is unfair.

 

[Oak23]

Additionally, I read where the president is about to demand we join some Covax protocol. Where our vaccines begin to go all over the world for all countries. That’s 5 billion plus ppl. You all better get it fast, otherwise, you may not. I believe This could go sideways fast. Seems to me, he would begin to be culpable for USA deaths especially if he began to ship many vaccines overseas.
Seriously though, At what point is he responsible or will he ever because I value American lives 1st. Sorry, call me selfish.

 

[garddog]

As far as covid deaths go, if you have personal friends that are coroner's or work in the funeral business, you should ask them how many deaths are listed as covid. I know multiple people in both professions and 7 or 8 out of 10 in mississippi are being classed as covid, no matter what other issues the person has. There are people dying from covid, but a lot were already dying from underlying causes, but those are not listed as cause of death.