Canadian COVID-19 News

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I can't help myself. To all of us still engaged in what we think is a discussion:

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

From those graphs (of which you fail to provide the source), the thing that is painfully obvious, is that non covid hospitalizations are skyrocketing. You don't care to investigate? I am guessing that it is mostly cardiac related and probably due to the vaccine side effects.

Good observation TU. Cardiac injury is a known hazard of the injections. Governments are likely to try and hide these in the data. Internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, Dr. Peter McCullough has commented on the trend of increased cardiac cases since the vax rollout began. Post injection cardiac injury cases as of Jan. 7 are noted by the CDC's VAERS as 11,055 Heart Attacks and 25,773 Myocarditis/Pericarditis
https://openvaers.com/covid-data



This cardiac issue could make COVID cases small by comparison. And the Quebec Premier wants to tax or fine non injected people over his concern that they are causing a high demand on health care. It seems that the injected people might be causing a higher demand.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I can't help myself. To all of us still engaged in what we think is a discussion:

... it feels more like this, but point taken.

[sv_pelagia]

FACTCHECK: the claim that 97% of positive PCR tests are false positive...

This bogus claim keeps rearing its head. A search of the internet will provide many FACTCHECKS that show this is a FALSE claim.

For example, see:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN2A429W

https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinf...ive-rate-of-97

https://fullfact.org/online/bristol-weston-PCR-cycle/

https://virologydownunder.com/the-fa...not-a-problem/

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-...04097-Dec2020/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...irus-1.5257357


... the list goes on.

People with actual expertise agree that PCR tests are reliable

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I can't help myself. To all of us still engaged in what we think is a discussion:

I was part of a group (one of many groups) that opposed a massive industrial project in my hometown. I got along with all but two of the proponents executives, engineers, lawyers, and expert witness panel members.

We could have informal discussions without getting hot under the collar because we listened to, and considered what the other was saying.

This is possible face to face if you remain steadfastly open minded and don't get 'triggered' by baiting remarks the other person usually leads with. It might take half an hour with a tough nut, but people will let their defences down, relax, and at that point really worthwhile discussion can be had.

Online, it's almost impossible.

My time is better spent with inflexible contrarians on ignore...almost half a page of posts are sometimes blocked. They seem to come in waves.

Still lots of good info on this thread, with links, and those links sometimes have links to support what they are saying!

[Scorpius]

BREAKING NEWS from the NY Times:
Pfizer and Moderna booster shots were extremely effective in preventing those infected with Omicron from being hospitalized, C.D.C. data shows.

Friday, January 21, 2022 11:16 AM EST
The extra doses were most effective against infection and death among Americans aged 50 and older, the data showed.
Read the latest

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

I was part of a group (one of many groups) that opposed a massive industrial project in my hometown. I got along with all but two of the proponents executives, engineers, lawyers, and expert witness panel members.

We could have informal discussions without getting hot under the collar because we listened to, and considered what the other was saying.

This is possible face to face if you remain steadfastly open minded and don't get 'triggered' by baiting remarks the other person usually leads with. It might take half an hour with a tough nut, but people will let their defences down, relax, and at that point really worthwhile discussion can be had.

Online, it's almost impossible.

My time is better spent with inflexible contrarians on ignore...almost half a page of posts are sometimes blocked. They seem to come in waves.

Still lots of good info on this thread, with links, and those links sometimes have links to support what they are saying!

Yes, the climate and COVID tyranny supporters get out of hand. It seems pointless discussing anything with firmly biased minds. The contrarian postings are getting quite numerous, and I have better things to do. I gotta go out and burn some diesel today. Will have to leave the crowd to themselves.

[sv_pelagia]

Rapid Antigen test and PCR tests match well when rapid antigen test carried out 2-3 days into symptoms:

"To get the most from your rapid test, wait at least 48 hours after symptoms and 5 days after exposure before taking an antigen test. If you’re negative, test again 24 hours thereafter. You can certainly test sooner, but any negative results will be unreliable. A positive antigen test result, on the other hand, is very reliable right now, especially after exposure or with symptoms."

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.subs...eal-world-data

Hum, interesting, a test completely different from PCR tests gives same results....

Oh, by the way, actual experts consider PCR tests the gold standard.

Alternatively, one could believe those tiny minority -- most with no specific expertise (and some even ignorant) concerning virology and epidemiology -- who question PCR tests.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Rapid Antigen test and PCR tests match well when rapid antigen test carried out 2-3 days into infection:

"To get the most from your rapid test, wait at least 48 hours after symptoms and 5 days after exposure before taking an antigen test. If you’re negative, test again 24 hours thereafter. You can certainly test sooner, but any negative results will be unreliable. A positive antigen test result, on the other hand, is very reliable right now, especially after exposure or with symptoms."

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.subs...eal-world-data

Hum, interesting, A test completely different from PCR tests gives same results....

Oh, by the way, actual experts consider PCR tests the gold standard.

Alternatively, one could believe those tiny minority -- most with no specific expertise (and some even ignorant) concerning virology and epidemiology -- who question PCR tests.

Not to add any weight to some of the specious arguments on here, but about 2 weeks ago our Provincial Medical Officer was on CBC saying that a negative quick test was "irrelevant". His perspective was that a positive test was a valid reason to quarantine but a negative result was not a reason to go out.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Not to add any weight to some of the specious arguments on here, but about 2 weeks ago our Provincial Medical Officer was on CBC saying that a negative quick test was "irrelevant". His perspective was that a positive test was a valid reason to quarantine but a negative result was not a reason to go out.

The excellent YLE blog post I cited provides information/data about rapid antigen negative test results, and how to make them more reliable.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Not to add any weight to some of the specious arguments on here, but about 2 weeks ago our Provincial Medical Officer was on CBC saying that a negative quick test was "irrelevant". His perspective was that a positive test was a valid reason to quarantine but a negative result was not a reason to go out.

Shows what the test is worth. Positive results are deemed as good, but negative tests are disregarded. And tax payers are paying for the tests and paying the officer's salary. The buffoon should have been fired on the spot. And worse, we are paying the CBC to spew thus stuff out without questioning it. Is it any wonder why government and media credibility is suffering?

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Shows what the test is worth. Positive results are deemed as good, but negative tests are disregarded. And tax payers are paying for the tests and paying the officer's salary. The buffoon should have been fired on the spot. And worse, we are paying the CBC to spew thus stuff out without questioning it. Is it any wonder why government and media credibility is suffering?

Of course that is not at all what the minister was saying and you know that! A positive test of course means that you have contracted Covid. A negative result means just that. Up to the point of taking the test, you have not contracted Covid. Doesn't mean you're safe, just means that the virus is out there and you have not contracted it/come in contact with someone that is infectious.

[Nord Sal]

Besides the problem of false positives from PCR testing using high CT values, the PCR can still deliver a positive result for as much as twelve weeks after recovery from a Covid-19 infection. So, many new "cases" of people who aren't sick are actually recovered infections, not asymptomatic infections.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...ter-infection/

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by pcmm

Of course that is not at all what the minister was saying and you know that! A positive test of course means that you have contracted Covid. A negative result means just that. Up to the point of taking the test, you have not contracted Covid. Doesn't mean you're safe, just means that the virus is out there and you have not contracted it/come in contact with someone that is infectious.

First point is that it was not a minister who was quoted. it was a public health officer. So you comment was loaded with twisted bias. Please read things carefully before writing.


The officer clearly indicated an unscientific means of interpreting the test in favor of a positive result. The officer is unfit for the job. How can a symptomless person who tests positive be objectively considered as infected. Clinical diagnosis should take priority. A person can come into contact with any disease at any time. But there is no mass campaign to test for cold, flu, mumps, chicken pox, lyme, etc. Anyone would agree that this would be a complete waste of resources. There is nothing special about COVID that should require mass testing of symptomless people.

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

First point is that it was not a minister who was quoted. it was a public health officer. So you comment was loaded with twisted bias. Please read things carefully before writing.


The officer clearly indicated an unscientific means of interpreting the test in favor of a positive result. The officer is unfit for the job. How can a symptomless person who tests positive be objectively considered as infected. Clinical diagnosis should take priority. A person can come into contact with any disease at any time. But there is no mass campaign to test for cold, flu, mumps, chicken pox, lyme, etc. Anyone would agree that this would be a complete waste of resources. There is nothing special about COVID that should require mass testing of symptomless people.

No my comment is not loaded with "twisted bias" it simply states what any reasonable person would interpret the statement as: negative you have not been infected. Does not mean the world outside is any safer or that you won't come in contact. and yes a symptom-less person that tests positive IS infected. I suppose for you, if you don't see a tumour that means you don't have cancer even if a biopsy shows that you do!

but i have to admit your arguments throughout all of this have been very humorous to read!