Mutating Corona Virus

[honeybee13]

Rachel Clarke's Twitter thread is very touching and very sad. Another plan HMG had omitted to make.

 

Interestingly, Byline Times has just brought out an article by an NHS whistleblower on care home guidance and how PHE were leaned on. I think there's more to come on this.

 

Health Department Whistleblower: Political Pressure ‘Watered-Down’ Public Health England Care Home Guidance Over COVID Testing – Byline Times

BYLINETIMES.COM

---

Nafeez Ahmed reports on an insider’s account of how the Department of Health and Social Care leaned on Public Health officials to drop...

 

[tobyjugg2]

and with handcock claiming

 

'he doesn't recall ..

 

and Handcock claiming ICL said 500,000 deaths possible, and hancock now claiming anything better that the 820,000 deaths that was never ever mentioned until now was great ..

- rather than that 40,000 deaths would be a disaster which we all actually heard

 

and that when he said there would be testing of people before returning them to care homes he meant some day in the future when accurate testing capacity and a sub 24 hour turnaround was achieved .... and not at the time when they only claimed )lied) that there was capacity and a world beating service

 

Oh and that he had to rush through a change so there was no limit on how much he could pay his pals for not delivering fit for purpose PPE

- He's proud of that.

[honeybee13]

Matt Hancock in front of the select committee, on allowing access to patient records by private companies. He's asked if he knows that one of the firms involved with NHS data has connections with Cambridge Analytica. Embarrssing.

 

 

[honeybee13]

Another article with information on Palantir and its growing involvement with the NHS, by a doctor.

 

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/06/the-dangers-of-the-nhs-data-grab/

 

[tobyjugg2]

Committee:

Should you have acted differently in the early stages

 

Hancock

Lets see,

*We were given two lots of projected figures and clear signs of a potential 1920's style pandemic and we announced anything but those

* the PM and I told everyone to go to football matches, travel on crowded transport, go to work, everyone bring it back from abroad, and its just a cold

so clearly the answer is - No - no-one could have handled it better.

 

 

Committee:

A basic question. Given your seeming 'assurances on maintaining the privacy of UK patients private and personal medical information,

Can you tell us to whom you will be allowing  access to that confidential, private and personal UK citizen medical information?

 

Handcock:

I think pleading ignorance is the least incriminating response I can give to that.

 

 

Committee:

Ok How are you protecting the privacy of the data?

 

Handcock:

we've made it entirely anonymous by talking about the data primarily using the nhs number (that these companies already have via their work with booking jabs, even if the person hasnt had their jab) - largely just as we access and use it anyway.

 

[brassnecked]

If they got rid of Hancock, likely all your data still belonga Palantir and Cambridge Analytica, ass it will go ahead regardless, bet Contracts already signed.

[tobyjugg2]

Im still wondering how the brexiters are going to make their money outside of betting against British companies from a safe haven in the EU?

 

All the 'grate deals' offered the UK (outside the EU's offerings) seem to be to vastly to the other sides benefit, and damaging to UK businesses

- can't just be more asset stripping can it?

- thinking about it - yes it can. Thats what Johnsons populists have done to the economy - asset strip and pile up debt to the profit if a few - just like the water companies did.

[tobyjugg2]

"Boris Johnson has followed Joe Biden’s lead and announced a big vaccine donation number: the UK is to give 100m surplus doses to poorer countries. The first 5m doses will be shipped out by the end of September, with another 25m by the end of the year."

 

So who else thinks thats something else pulled out of Johnsons vast backside with nothing to back it up but odorous polluting hot air which will evaporate shortly after being expelled?

 

Commitee:

How did your assurances come to simply not happen yet again?

Populist:

We only made that statement based on the understanding that it would happen only as long as something would be done by somebody to make it happen, and how could we have been expected to do anything to make it happen?

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Stop Using Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test:

FDA Safety Communication

Stop Using Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test

WWW.FDA.GOV

---

The FDA has significant concerns that performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health.

 

 

"The Food and Drug Administration announced a recall Thursday of a coronavirus rapid antigen test, accusing the company that makes the tests of distributing them without regulatory approval and using falsified data that inflates their performance.

The agency announced a “Class 1 recall” — its most serious type, indicating that use of the tests may cause serious injuries or death — and fired off a warning letter to Innova Medical Group of Pasadena, Calif., saying an FDA investigation revealed serious problems in the company’s data, but also in its making unapproved rapid tests available to consumers in the United States."

 

FDA accuses firm of distributing an unapproved Covid-19 test - STAT

WWW.STATNEWS.COM

---

The FDA noted significant concerns with the data Innova Medical Group is using to try to get regulatory approval and to promote its tests.

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

On 19/01/2021 at 12:47, tobyjugg2 said:

Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer for England on the use of lateral flow tests in schools:

 

"What we are finding is it is highly effective, at probably around 80-85%, in picking up cases at their most infectious period"

 

1. Rubbish - the figures I've seen are that even with high viral loads the effectiveness is well below those 'probably around' figures she states

2. Where are the stats on what viral loads children carry to support her use? What I've seen is that kids commonly have lower viral loads when infected but are still infectious

3. What the crap is the deputy chief medical officer doing using 'probably' 'around' and fake figures in attempts to drive policy?

 

whatsup? Has whitty and Vallence refused to spout this nonesense so they called in more compliant backup?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/regulator-refuses-to-approve-mass-covid-testing-schools-in-england

 

A little reminder

[tobyjugg2]

So as we know know

* LFT's are about 80-85% (the misleading used figure) effective when people with the highest detectable viral loads are tested in laboratory conditions by experts

ie most would probably be running a real fever and coughing their lungs up and collapsing on the floor while they wait the 20 minutes for the test result ...

 

In more real world situations, they will probably trap around 30-50% of 'significant infections

- still very useful if used appropriately

 

BUT Lets not forget that temperature checks would catch around 30% of the spreadable infections, and a much higher and very significant proportion those super-spreader high load infections

- far cheaper and far more useful at mass transport and supermarket sites  - and could and should have been quickly implemented a year ago. Stated at teh time - NOT hindsight.

 

Both together seems a missed opportunity, and not immediately implementing temperature checks has probably tripled the spread over the past year+

[honeybee13]

This video of Matt Hancock voiced by Sweep has had over 90k views on Twitter. Childish but pretty funny.

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Could argue that Boris, is a mixture of many of the Rainbow characters, including Zippy, Bungle and George.

 

Might be why Boris is popular with some people.  He reminds them of many of their favourite Childrens TV characters.

 

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

This is probably a question that @BazzaS would know the answer.

 

Is it possible for someone with Covid type symptons to have a negative LFT, but to then go on to have a positive PCR ?

 

The PCR is more sophisticated as far as I understand it, with a greater level of accuracy ?

 

 

[determindator]

What i've read about LFT and PCR tests is they both have their own ambiguities however, PCR tests are sent to a Lab

but they don't know how 'right' the result they are looking at is.

 

I would say yes UB, could have neg LFT and a positive PCR.

Edited June 15, 2021 by determindator

[tobyjugg2]

9 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

This is probably a question that @BazzaS would know the answer.

 

Is it possible for someone with Covid type symptons to have a negative LFT, but to then go on to have a positive PCR ?

 

The PCR is more sophisticated as far as I understand it, with a greater level of accuracy ?

 

 

 

Yes

 

Consider - Generally - but not always - it would seem that people showing symptoms have a higher viral load, and the higher the viral load in the upper respiratory tract, the more virus to be detected by the tests

 

Some people can be very ill but with the virus prevalent in the body blood/cells/heart/nervous system but not 'large amounts in the upper respiratory tract where the swabs sample - all depends on how the immune system reacts to the particular variant

 

There is also the time into the infection - a PCR just 24 hours after an LFT can at a significantly different stage in the infection. Particularly in the early stages.

 

 

Perhaps LFT should be used and considered as a way of finding those with the more spreadable infections (those blowing and sweating it out their mouths and noses and pores) who need isolating and a PCR a confirmation (or are just told to isolate as has often been the case with the you've been near someone who may blah blah ..).

 

I am not certain how the different variants/mutations tend to present, and its unlikely they are that ordered and tidy, but it has been reported that the Delta variant and the variants that include multiple mutations can be significantly different in how they present symptoms.

examples:

* The delta would often seem to present more like a snotty cold, than a dry cough as in other variants, although different peoples immune systems can react and present differently.

* Some variant/mutations seem to flood the body with a protein that suppresses the bodies natural interferon generation used to help the body fight the invasion - often resulting in a VERY fast spread through the body and high levels of infection.

 

 

 

[BazzaS]

9 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

This is probably a question that @BazzaS would know the answer.

 

Is it possible for someone with Covid type symptons to have a negative LFT, but to then go on to have a positive PCR ?

 

The PCR is more sophisticated as far as I understand it, with a greater level of accuracy ?

 

 

 

You absolutely can (have a negative lateral flow test, and a positive PCR).

 

This can also happen when someone is symptomatic, and actually has Covid (the scenario most people would consider first, and what I think you are asking about).

There is a fallacy to that scenario, though : if symptomatic, they shouldn't be using the lateral flow test (which is for SCREENING of the ASYMPTOMATIC), but those people should be going for the higher sensitivity PCR as the initial test.

 

If used 'correctly', (both in terms of 'both samples taken correctly', and 'used for the asymptomatic'!) then it is possible for someone asymptomatic to test negative by lateral flow, and positive by PCR.

There is again an inherent issue to this scenario, though : the testing (for someone asymptomatic, for most situations!) should stop when they have the negative lateral flow test, and they wouldn't need the PCR - so why would they then know the PCR result?

 

An exception here would be e.g. someone traveling internationally, who might get a (self taken) lateral flow test (which comes back negative, with a result within 30 mins), and then a PCR taken at the same time, which takes longer to come back, but then comes back positive ........ presumed then to be the PCR being the more sensitive test, and the 'true picture' (rather than the PCR being a 'false positive'!).

In the academic scenario (or if you were a leading politician, or a titan of business willing to pay for a clearer answer ..... or an answer you prefer if it meant you could travel / not self-isolate!): one could then re-test by a different PCR that uses a different target ... which then gives the suggestion of which is the 'false' test (false negative 'insensitive' lateral flow vs. false +ve PCR!).

 

Where does one stop, though?. All tests have false negative rates and false positive rates, so I can create the possible (but unlikely!) scenario where there is a true negative lateral flow, with one or MORE false positive PCR's. One would tend to 'believe' the PCR's (especially if more than one!), but it would be POSSIBLE (if unlikely!) that the PCR's could all be false positive. As you get more and more positive PCR's using different targets, the likelihood diminishes, though (although this wouldn't affect other sources of error such as sample crossover [what if they tested a sample which was someone else's sample, and was in fact +ve, but it had been labelled as the first person's sample??).

Again, where do you stop? cell culture? (the 'gold standard' by which the PCR and lateral flow test sensitivity and specificity should be measured, but not widely available).

 

None of these are new issue, or specific to COVID, though. The National Blood Transfusion Service has dealt with screening tests (albeit it, not for COVID, but for other infectious diseases) for many years.

Blood samples from donations may test HIV +ve (on screening!), and then there is a whole protocol (different tests on the original sample, repeat testing by the original test methodology whilst going back to the primary sample tube, and getting a completly new sample [to ensure different people's samples haven't been inadvertently 'switched'!] if there are still concerns!) to ensure that :

a) the donor isn't told "you have HIV", when they HAVEN'T but at the same time

b) If the donor does have undiagnosed HIV infection, they get followed up, retested, (and then told!).

 

All this relies on an understanding of test specificity and sensitivity (and of what can go wrong at any point in the testing : pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical !), while appreciating that most people just want a test result and would consider  the report as 'gospel' : "positive means you have it, negative means you don't".........

[unclebulgaria67]

Reason for asking is that I have come across someone with some Covid type symptons having a negative LFT and then having the PCR which also came back as negative.

 

This person was advised to go thorugh this process by their employers.   Was not sure why they did not just have the PCR.

[tobyjugg2]

Speed of result.

 

If the lft was positive, they should isolate while waiting any other testing. and they should expect a positive PCR.

It should be quite rare for a following PCR to test neg after an lft tests pos (provided the samples were taken within 24 hours or so) although it does happen and did in trials,

 

The other way around  - LFT neg followed by a postive PCR - FAR more common

 

 

LFT test are simply NOT accurate - little more if any than temperature checks which is also a 'quick test' which should also be confirmed with a PCR. LFT checks should be combined with temperature checks.

 

Haven't seen any real world stats on high temperatures with new variants, but haven't looked.

Edited June 15, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

After quick look:

 

High temp seems to be at least as common as Kent variant if not more (more like heavy cold than earlier variants) with cough and loss of taste/smell less common

R no estimated at around 6 - that is VERY bad

(Kings College)

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

jpg's not allowed anymore?

 

Portugal red listed ... lol

 

United Kingdom: Coronavirus Pandemic Country Profile

OURWORLDINDATA.ORG

---

United Kingdom: What has been the impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)?

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

No, it was causing problems on other subforums. Are pdf files a problem for you, TJ?

[tobyjugg2]

Nope. just an extra step

and a lack of visibility/impact when done ..

 

squandered lock downs and vaccination program.pdf

Edited June 16, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[brassnecked]

Looks like Hay Fever will be diagnosed as Covid next.  Similar symptoms.......

[tobyjugg2]

BREAKING: Dido Harding has applied to be NHS England chief executive

 

https://twitter.com/Jamesillman/status/1405525464874053635?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1405525464874053635|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-39751612711448178386.ampproject.net%2F2106072053000%2Fframe.html

Edited June 17, 2021 by tobyjugg2