• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
480
No one told QV to shut up. I didn’t outright dismiss Dr, Ponesse either. Maybe it’s a knee jerk reaction but she started her entire 3 part essay on the subject with “we are not in a pandemic”. So yes it makes whatever she says after sort of moot and pointless. As I said she made some valid points but she completely discredited herself with that starting point.

It is the same thing when someone says “all soldiers are murderers” and then proceeds to discuss the ethics of killing. He or she may be an expert in ethics, but hasn’t served a day in uniform, but proceeds to make a bunch of points and arguments that killing is wrong. The first part unfortunately ruins whatever valid thing he or she might have to say about the subject.
This is likely based on the position that PCR testing is deeply flawed resulting in significant false positives, those inflated numbers informing policy decisions. A number of foreign courts have made rulings PCR tests are not reliable for this purpose. Germany, Portugues, Dutch and Austrian courts as far as I know so far...

 
Last edited:

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
563
Points
860
This is likely based on the position that PCR testing is deeply flawed resulting in significant false positives, those inflated numbers informing policy decisions. A number of foreign courts have made rulings PCR tests are not reliable for this purpose. Germany, Portugues, Dutch and Austrian courts as far as I know so far...


Right. And it was found that the Judge didn’t understand what he was being presented. Misread and misunderstood the science presented to him



And while there may be false positives, there are far more false negatives.

This explanation from the University of McGill breaks it down nicely and why people are misusing PCR results to claim that the pandemic isn’t as bad as the tests show. It’s because, like Dr. Ponesesse, they don’t understand what they are interpreting.

 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
260
Points
1,130
To me, the only thing that she says that might be considered as controversial is the "not in pandemic" comment.
I'm not an expert. But, based on the link Bruce posted, it sounds like one to me.

Death toll 1918 - 20 Influenza pandemic: 17–100 million.

Death toll Covid-19 pandemic as of 27 May, 2021: 7.5 million+ (estimated).

If we are discussing the definition of the word itself,

( Sorry for the bold font, that was my computer. Not me. )


 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
480
Right. And it was found that the Judge didn’t understand what he was being presented. Misread and misunderstood the science presented to him



And while there may be false positives, there are far more false negatives.

This explanation from the University of McGill breaks it down nicely and why people are misusing PCR results to claim that the pandemic isn’t as bad as the tests show. It’s because, like Dr. Ponesesse, they don’t understand what they are interpreting.

So who found the judge misunderstood and has the case been overturned? Not yet that I’m aware of.

The judges quoted a paper published in The Lancet a snip of what was stated in the Lancet here:

To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels (panel).
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
260
Points
1,130
Now do the definitions of herd immunity, both the pre-COVID and new definition.
I don't have to. You are the one making the claims on here.

Sort of like me claiming a teapot is orbiting the sun. Then demanding you prove that it isn't.

You lost my interest with your first sentence,
Some of you will be incapable of hearing this.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
563
Points
860
So who found the judge misunderstood and has the case been overturned? Not yet that I’m aware of.

The judges quoted a paper published in The Lancet a snip of what was stated in the Lancet here:

To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels (panel).
Did you not read the link I sent to the push back against the judge’s ruling?

and to add, when one digs enough, the ruling was specific to the case of those 4 travellers, that there was enough reasonable doubt to state that they may not have tested positive because of the way the test was administered, Portuguese law and the legality of quarantining said travellers.


So it had to do with the state of alert they were at in order to enforce a quarantine.

and…. The Portuguese Court of Appeal ruled that quarantine was illegal and that PCR tests were inaccurate. - Poynter

The issue has more to do with Portuguese law, and not the actual efficiency of the test. Which blows Dr. Ponesse’s assertion (and yours) that we are not in a pandemic.

Those that have grabbed that bone wonder why more attention isn’t given to this or that media is ignoring this have ignored the fact that it isn’t supported by anything tangible and that they are even misinterpreting the court’s ruling.
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
480
Did you not read the link I sent to the push back against the judge’s ruling?

and to add, when one digs enough, the ruling was specific to the case of those 4 travellers, that there was enough reasonable doubt to state that they may not have tested positive because of the way the test was administered, Portuguese law and the legality of quarantining said travellers.


So it had to do with the state of alert they were at in order to enforce a quarantine.

and…. The Portuguese Court of Appeal ruled that quarantine was illegal and that PCR tests were inaccurate. - Poynter

The issue has more to do with Portuguese law, and not the actual efficiency of the test. Which blows Dr. Ponesse’s assertion (and yours) that we are not in a pandemic.

Those that have grabbed that bone wonder why more attention isn’t given to this or that media is ignoring this have ignored the fact that it isn’t supported by anything tangible and that they are even misinterpreting the court’s ruling.
Sorry to say Remius but a news article doesn’t over turn a court ruling, and you ignoring the findings from the publication in the Lancet won’t make them go away. The whole point is there are varying professional opinions on how PCR testing is being used, and only one side is getting stifled... how can you not see that as a problem? You’re reaching again in this, and with your assertion that now I personally am of the belief we are not in a pandemic simply for raising these discussion points. Are we not allowed to raise questions around here without every attempt to personally discredit?
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
480
I don't have to. You are the one making the claims on here.

Sort of like me claiming a teapot is orbiting the sun. Then demanding you prove that it isn't.

You lost my interest with your first sentence,
What are you even talking about?
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
563
Points
860
Sorry to say Remius but a news article doesn’t over turn a court ruling, and you ignoring the findings from the publication in the Lancet won’t make them go away. The whole point is there are varying professional opinions on how PCR testing is being used, and only one side is getting stifled... how can you not see that as a problem? You’re reaching again in this, and with your assertion that now I personally am of the belief we are not in a pandemic simply for raising these discussion points. Are we not allowed to raise questions around here without every attempt to personally discredit?
How did I personally discredit you? I pointed out the fallacy of the arguments made. I didn’t nor did I ever say the court ruling was overturned. Just that you misunderstood the actual court ruling.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
260
Points
1,130
What are you even talking about?

Guess you never heard of Russell's teapot analogy.
"Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."

Now do the definitions of herd immunity, both the pre-COVID and new definition.

After reading your first sentence, I pretty much lost interest in your demands.

Some of you will be incapable of hearing this.
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
480
Guess you never heard of Russell's teapot analogy.
"Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."



After reading your first sentence, I pretty much lost interest in your demands.
This is just your way of avoiding a discussion on long accepted definitions changing half way through a pandemic.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
326
Points
880
This is just your way of avoiding a discussion on long accepted definitions changing half way through a pandemic.
Yes, the definition did change. It wasn't secret and they even explained why it changed.. But of course, since it doesn't jive with what you believe, it must be a conspiracy.

Why did the WHO change the definition of herd immunity

In my former work in public health, we often referred to herd immunity in terms of vaccine uptake. Not to say that disease exposure doesn't count for something, but exposing people to a disease that is potentially fatal (and/or has long-term health effects) is clearly NOT the ideal way to achieve herd immunity.
 
Last edited:

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
480
How did I personally discredit you? I pointed out the fallacy of the arguments made. I didn’t nor did I ever say the court ruling was overturned. Just that you misunderstood the actual court ruling.
You haven’t pointed out anything of substance. Your core argument is Ponesse lacks credibility because she suggests there isn’t a pandemic. I suggest she potentially formulates that opinion because she doesn’t trust the data stemming from PCR testing, and I’ve given an example to demonstrate where that may come from; medical publications and court cases related to PCR and how it’s been used. I don’t know if she is right or wrong or whether the court rulings or the Lancet pub will survive. But I’m not categorically ruling out her opinion.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
469
Points
880
The thing about scientists is that they do not fall into two exact camps: those who are correct about everything they claim, and those who are incorrect. More typically, each holds a mix of correct and incorrect views. Correctly-held views are not proof of infallibility; incorrectly held views are not proof of uniform error.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
563
Points
860
You haven’t pointed out anything of substance. Your core argument is Ponesse lacks credibility because she suggests there isn’t a pandemic. I suggest she potentially formulates that opinion because she doesn’t trust the data stemming from PCR testing, and I’ve given an example to demonstrate where that may come from; medical publications and court cases related to PCR and how it’s been used. I don’t know if she is right or wrong or whether the court rulings or the Lancet pub will survive. But I’m not categorically ruling out her opinion.
The fact that you say I haven’t pointed out anything of substance shows how closed minded you are being. You prefaced this entire subject but saying only a few would have an open mind or hear what was being said. The McGill article is not substance?

I showed you that the ruling was about the legality of the test to be used as a tool to enforce a quarantine law (a Portuguese law) given the alert level at the time. In November when the alert level did not allow for the law to enforce a quarantine based on that particular test. There is nothing to overturn in that court ruling. The judge didn’t invalidate the pcr test.

So in Portuguese law, the test’s false positivity rate met that country’s threshold for reasonable doubt in regards to THE LAW in place as to the enforcement of a quarantine action as determined by their alert level at that time.

You quote one line in that lancet article as an argument about pcr test being innacurate. But have you read the whole thing?

It does discuss false positives. It also shows false negatives at a much higher rate. You can figure out what that means in the larger context.

But it also is specific to the UK where Covid rates were lower thus making more false positives as a result of their sample size. And it offers solutions to help mitigate those false positives.

Your philosophy expert is wrong. We are in a pandemic. But I can see why you would think we may not be based on the information you had. I provided you with some more.
 
Top