Canadian COVID-19 News

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by 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/

A major weakness of the PCR test is that it does not distinguish between living and dead material. Another is that it cannot quantify results. It is a simple yes/no result. It is incapable of quantify viral load because it does not detect any virus.


I will not cite material on these simple facts because these are easily found. I'll not work to spoon feed the the nay sayers. If they would only do some reading of credible sources, they might discover the truth. But lazy minds prefer to sit in front of the screen and swallow the lies of such propaganda as CBC and CNN.

[SailorDoc]

Originally Posted by 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

Gee, none of these links come from CNN or CBC propaganda!
Guess it must be true that PCR tests can be trusted.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by SailorDoc

Gee, none of these links come from CNN or CBC propaganda!
Guess it must be true that PCR tests can be trusted.

Yup. They can.

[sv_pelagia]

There is some confusion regarding labelling in the graphs from https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations It is not clear if #hospitalizations is for all hospitalizations or only COVID-19 hospitalizations.

However, the Ontario Covid-19 "Science Table" website's graphs are labelled very clearly: Here are the COVID-19 (only) hospitalization and ICU data:



https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/

The numbers look the same as the data Mike posted. They do not show hospitalizations for non-covid-19 patients. So nothing could be concluded about non-covid #s from that graph.

Mike subsequently showed graph of total ICU and covid-19 ICU numbers. Pretty clear that any increases in total ICU are coming from the COVID-19 patients.


https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations

At least one poster seemed confused. Now it should be crystal clear (if not, seek help).


FYI: The Scientific Director of the Ontario Covid-19 Science Table is Dr. Peter Jüni. Now very familiar to Canadians, he has subtantive highly respected credentials.
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/about/#juni-peter

[N Coast Murray]

A first early glimmer that BC is edging towards the endemic phase?

B.C.’s top doctor signalled Friday that the province’s approach to COVID-19 has shifted as new data appears to show the current surge of the Omicron variant has been milder than previous waves of the pandemic when it comes to the rate of hospitalizations.

Data presented by Dr. Bonnie Henry at a 10 a.m. news conference shows that compared to the wave fuelled by the Delta variant, there is a lower rate of hospitalizations caused by Omicron…

Dr Henry:

“If you have mild illness like sore throat or sniffles, stay home and if you feel better next day go back to work, school, child care, and this applies to kids in daycare or school and adults.”

Henry said she recognizes this is a shift in tone in regards to the pandemic. “It means that we have to change our way of thinking that we’ve been so intently working on together for the last two years,” she said.

https://www.cheknews.ca/b-c-health-o...10-a-m-941318/

**Subject to change if a more serious variant shows up**

[Delancey]

Wow! What a huge thread?

I wouldn’t know where to begin, is there any chance someone would be so kind as to provide a tldr for this thread? Like, for almost 4,000 posts are there five definitive things anyone can agree about?

Thanks in advance!

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Wow! What a huge thread?

I wouldn’t know where to begin, is there any chance someone would be so kind as to provide a tldr for this thread? Like, for almost 4,000 posts are there five definitive things anyone can agree about?

Thanks in advance!

Sorry, I don't know what a tidr is.

The thread started very early in the pandemic and for the most part has been a very intelligent discussion about Covid-19 in Canada and the various provinces. At first it was quite sailing and sailor oriented (considering the impact of Covid on cruising - a number of the participants have not been able to get to their boats or get home because of Covid restrictions) but recently has been more about Covid in Canada generally - with comparisons to other parts of the world.

Until fairly recently pretty well everybody participating was Canadian, or at least in Canada, and knew what they were talking about. However, in the last couple of months a number of outsiders have chimed in and the level of intelligent and civil discussion has seen a marked decline.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Sorry, I don't know what a tidr is.

The thread started very early in the pandemic and for the most part has been a very intelligent discussion about Covid-19 in Canada and the various provinces. At first it was quite sailing and sailor oriented (considering the impact of Covid on cruising - a number of the participants have not been able to get to their boats or get home because of Covid restrictions) but recently has been more about Covid in Canada generally - with comparisons to other parts of the world.

Until fairly recently pretty well everybody participating was Canadian, or at least in Canada, and knew what they were talking about. However, in the last couple of months a number of outsiders have chimed in and the level of intelligent and civil discussion has seen a marked decline.

Yes. This is a TLDR exactly. It means a summary. Thank you.

So, if you don’t mind my asking, the outsiders have degraded the discussion how? By making fallacies? Or by being crass? I am just trying to understand your comment. Thanks

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by Delancey

...So, if you don’t mind my asking, the outsiders have degraded the discussion how? By making fallacies? Or by being crass? I am just trying to understand your comment. Thanks

Why not go back 20 or 30 pages and read from there. That should catch you up

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Yes. This is a TLDR exactly. It means a summary. Thank you.

So, if you don’t mind my asking, the outsiders have degraded the discussion how? By making fallacies? Or by being crass? I am just trying to understand your comment. Thanks

By spreading skewed and mis-information, by (deliberately?) misrepresenting and mis-interpreting data, by showing ignorance of Canada and Canadian culture, political and medical systems, and by, very un-Canadian-like, initiating personal attacks.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Any COVID data based upon PCR testing is useless. Several countries have banned it as a diagnostic method. A Portugese court ruled against it. So please do not burden us with any more statistics that are PCR based.

The Lisbon Court of Appeal [Portugal] has ruled [1] that PCR tests are unreliable, and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.
The specifics of the case concern four tourists, entering the country from Germany [all of whom are anonymous in the transcript of the case] who were quarantined by the regional health authority. Of the four, only one had tested positive for the virus, whilst the other three were deemed simply of “high infection risk” based on proximity to the positive individual. All four had, in the previous 72 hours, tested negative for the virus before departing from Germany.

The court stated [1], the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020 [2], the court concludes that
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%...
... “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
But, the court's decision referred only to the case of the four German tourists, concluding that a PCR test ALONE was insufficient, to diagnose the illness, or to determine infectivity of any person tested, and was insufficient grounds for forced isolation of individuals. The court required the diagnosis of a qualified medical doctor, on top of the results by the PCR test.
Most scientists dispute the court's interpretation, of the science.


[1] Lisbon Court of Appeal Ruling:
Portugese [original] ➥ Acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa
English [Google translation] ➥ https://www-dgsi-pt.translate.goog/j..._x_tr_hl=en-US

Here’s an interesting & informative article, explaining PCR testing, in [mostly] layman’s terrms:
“The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Reliable Despite the Commotion About Ct Values” ~ by Jonathan Jarry M.sc. [molecular biology]
The people sharing the claim that COVID-19 PCR testing is not reliable because of high Ct values are just amplifying noise.

... Some people claim, wrongly, that the PCR test for the coronavirus is useless because the so-called Ct values are too high and the test is picking up things that are not the coronavirus
- The PCR tests for the coronavirus that have been internally validated by public health agencies are actually very reliable
- Scientists cannot declare any result above a certain Ct value to be unreliable because Ct values are somewhat relative and must be interpreted by taking into account a variety of factors ...

Here ➥ https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/co...bout-ct-values

[2] “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates” ~ by Rita Jaafar et al [Sept 2020 - Corrected June 2021]
➥ https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/11/e921/5912603

[Thumbs Up]

Just to clarify why I am posting here (on the Canda thread). We had some other threads in the covid containment area where we could talk about the risks of these untested so-called vaccines. We also tried to discuss early treatment options, mandates and the like. I lost count of the number of threads that were closed and/or partially deleted. This was mostly due to the hissy fits and barrage of expletives and blatant insults by a few Canadian posters who frequent this thread. You know who you are (namely, MO, LE, svP). You guys can't stand for anybody to discuss these subjects on this forum so you crashed those threads! I know that not all Canadians are like that, but the initiating of personal attacks is on you guys. As one of those threads was being shut down (with MO even apologizing and hanging his head in shame) someone suggested we come over here and give you guys a hard time. I refrained. But I looked over here only to see the same spiel being preached about the church of Trust the Science. I ask to see science. I ask for the names of the experts. In return all I get is the official corporate/government story line.
Your Trust the Science church seems to have sanctioned it's own Legion of Decency where you have banned the viewing of any information that contradicts your precious official story line who's end game is to jab all humans every six months or less (including babies) with the new mRNA (genetic) vaccine platform. Your church, (Trust the Science, inc.) wants to ban actual science. It only serves to further it's own dogma: Obey, and shoot up all of the babies with genetic substances containing undisclosed ingredients even though it doesn't prevent a disease that they are not at risk for, nor prevent it's transmission, has known safety problems and can be altered on the slightest whim, and was developed, tested and marketed by convicted felons, and conceived of and planned out before said disease supposedly existed.

[Mike OReilly]

Back to news and information that is actually relevant to this thread.

I noted that Newfoundland recenly went back up to Level 4 on the Covid-19 action (Level 5 being the worst). Not good for the few of us trying to get back to The Rock this summer, but hopefully this too shall pass. And given news like this, it should:

G&M: What Newfoundland can teach the rest of Canada about vaccinating kids

When it comes to vaccinating children against the coronavirus, no province comes close to Newfoundland and Labrador. It leads the country, with nearly 75 per cent of kids aged 5 to 11 at least partly vaccinated, well above the national average, and nearly twice the rate of provinces such as Alberta.

...Ms. Abbott says that has a lot to do with trust.

[Thumbs Up]

Over 17,000 doctors & scientists have signed the Rome Declaration:

WHEREAS, after 20 months of research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, we have demonstrated and documented our success and understanding in combating COVID-19;
WHEREAS, in considering the risks vs. benefits of major policy decisions, thousands of physicians and medical scientists worldwide have reached consensus on three foundational principles;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:
RESOLVED, THAT HEALTHY CHILDREN SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO FORCED VACCINATION
Negligible clinical risks from SARS-CoV-2 infection exist for healthy children under eighteen.
Long term safety of the current COVID vaccines in children cannot be determined prior to instituting such policies. Without high-powered, reproducible, long term safety data, risks to the long-term health status of children remain too high to support use in healthy children.
Children risk severe, adverse events from receiving the vaccine. Permanent physical damage to the brain, heart, immune and reproductive system associated with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-based genetic vaccines has been demonstrated in children.
Healthy, unvaccinated children are critical to achieving herd immunity. Natural immunity is proven to tolerate infection, benefiting community protection while there is insufficient data to assess whether Covid vaccines assist herd immunity.
RESOLVED, THAT NATURALLY IMMUNE PERSONS RECOVERED FROM SARS-CoV-2 SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY RESTRICTIONS OR VACCINE MANDATES
Natural immunity is the most protective, and longest-lasting solution against the development of COVID-19 disease and its more serious outcomes.
Naturally immune persons are at the lowest risk of transmission, thus should not be subject to travel, professional, medical or social restrictions.
Natural immunity provides the best source of herd immunity, a condition necessary for eradicating the Covid virus.
RESOLVED, THAT ALL HEALTH AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS SHALL CEASE INTERFERING WITH PHYSICIANS TREATING INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS
Early intervention with numerous, available agents has proven to be safe and effective, and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
No medicine already given regulatory approval shall be restricted from “off-label” use, particularly during this global humanitarian crisis caused by a rapidly mutating virus, which requires quick to adopt treatment strategies.
Health agencies shall be prohibited from interfering with physicians prescribing evidence-based treatments they deem necessary, and insurance companies must cease blocking payments for life-saving medicine prescribed by doctors.
https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/

Over 17,000 doctors and scientists put their reputations on the line to stand for these declarations but you guys fail to list a single expert.

[GordMay]

I guess you haven't read a single scientific paper, to which I've linked, on several CF threads.

FWIW:
If you go to the “Physicians Declaration – Updated Global Covid Summit” page [1], you’ll find that they provide links* to their supporting evidence, for each of their resolutions.
[1] ➥ https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/

* ie: “RESOLVED, THAT HEALTHY CHILDREN SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO FORCED VACCINATION”
➥ https://doctorsandscientistsdeclarat...ence/#children


My posting the above information is NOT to be construed as an endorsement of the disinformation contained therein.