The Pat Kenny Show

BPKS

BPKS wrote: »

It depends on the conspiracy theory.

Like I said about the Martin Luther King one a few weeks back - would you consider people who believe he was killed by the FBI with the help of local Italian mafia mentally ill or losers?

Exactly. There are conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories.

The world being run by a group of people including the Bush's in the US and the royal family who in their natural form are lizards. Well, it takes a special type of person to believe that.

There are plenty of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true though. I knew about and had been telling people about the NSAs global efforts to monitor peoples communications since the 90s. Im sure some people thought I was crazy. Then Edward Snowden comes along and reveals the details of the Prism project. I was right all along.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Aliens, moon landings, vaccination conspiracies and other large scale nonsense is just nonsense.

You think the moon landings didn't happen?

meeeeh

Deleted User wrote: »

You think the moon landings didn't happen?

How did you come up with that conclusion or to offer a conspiracy theory, did you malevolently come up with that conclusion?

I said conspiracy theories around Moon landings are complete nonsense.

jippo nolan

bossdrum wrote: »

Ok, so the ones that you think are plausible are fine but every other conspiracy theory believer is a loser or mentally ill.

You don't have to look too far in this country to find plenty of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
Remember when the IMF came in and there were government ministers denying it was happening hours before hand? RTE were silent on it as well even though it was being broadcast on UK media.
Do you remember Maurice McCabe and the Garda corruption which the Government and state media did everything to discredit?

It seems to me that only losers or people without the capacity to think for themselves would believe anything on the main stream media and not question it.

And the “Chuckle Brothers” went on to RTÉ to deny it!

2smiggy

on today -

'the antigen test for slow learners'

should be ... interesting

pc7

I did giggle when I heard the promo cause I said the thread will melt that its antigen again

Technocentral

Antigen tests are great, bought a load in Lidl, if negative I am still as careful as always if I got a positive I would re test then call my doctor. No downside to using them once you follow the instructions

2smiggy

had to take a call, missed most of the interview.

Did the guest, that Pat had lined up, clear the situation up ?

Cole

2smiggy wrote: »

had to take a call, missed most of the interview.

Did the guest, that Pat had lined up, clear the situation up ?

I thought it was informative but, to be honest, it all just ends up getting more confusing. The guest discredited the Cochrane(?) report that (I think) Stephen Donnelly quoted last week.

What I've taken from the whole thing is to use them as a tool but just don't assume 100% accuracy if negative and keep being careful.

Pat's glee at discrediting any sort of (nuanced) counter view is all a bit irritating though...even if they are a good idea overall.

2smiggy

Cole wrote: »

I thought it was informative but, to be honest, it all just ends up getting more confusing. The guest discredited the Cochrane(?) report that (I think) Stephen Donnelly quoted last week.

What I've taken from the whole thing is to use them as a tool but just don't assume 100% accuracy if negative and keep being careful.

Pat's glee at discrediting any sort of (nuanced) counter view is all a bit irritating though...even if they are a good idea overall.

I think I seen some fellow from Harvard with a 100k plus followers on twitter disagreeing with Donnelly said about antigen tests, and what he said to Pat last week. No doubt that was the fellow they lined up.

2smiggy

BTW there seems to be someone with a Dr or Professor in their title on twitter , who will agree with a point of view, no matter what you think about it.

Patrick2010

Everytime I listen to Newstalk telephone interviews its 50/50 as to whether the conversation lasts or not or you'll get get gaps in the conversation.

EmmetSpiceland

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Everytime I listen to Newstalk telephone interviews its 50/50 as to whether the conversation lasts or not or you'll get get gaps in the conversation.

Are they using phones or is it all Zoom calls? Phone lines shouldn’t really have people sounding like they’re underwater.

Tell me how

Cole wrote: »

I thought it was informative but, to be honest, it all just ends up getting more confusing. The guest discredited the Cochrane(?) report that (I think) Stephen Donnelly quoted last week.

What I've taken from the whole thing is to use them as a tool but just don't assume 100% accuracy if negative and keep being careful.

Pat's glee at discrediting any sort of (nuanced) counter view is all a bit irritating though...even if they are a good idea overall.

The bit in bold is relevant. They might work as a placebo type effect but really, if you should still continue being careful, what have you really gained outside of maybe peace of mind?

And maybe someone might say that they'd use them before deciding to interact with people at some event or something but, the risk of being a spreader given the increased interaction with people at such an event probably outweighs the confidence a non-guaranteed test would give you and so you are back in the same position. No?

serfboard

2smiggy wrote: »

Did the guest, that Pat had lined up, clear the situation up ?

What I took from what he said was that PCR tests will tell you if you have been infectious, Anitgen tests will tell you if you currently are.

He said that it would be helpful if along with the PCR test result, that it showed the "cycle threshold", so one could then say whether a person was infectious or not. There's an explainer about cycle thresholds and PCR testing here:

FullFact wrote:

A PCR test is performed by repeatedly replicating target viral material in the sample to the point that it becomes detectable. The number of cycles before the virus is detectable is known as the cycle threshold (Ct).

A positive test with a high Ct value may indicate a test from someone who had a very small amount of detectable viral RNA on their initial swab, and may not be infectious or have ongoing active infection.

This was yer man's point. But,

FullFact wrote:

However, there are other clinical scenarios that can result in a positive test with high Ct value in someone who may still be infectious or who may soon become infectious.

which suggests that it's not as cut and dried as he made out.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

The bit in bold is relevant. They might work as a placebo type effect but really, if you should still continue being careful, what have you really gained outside of maybe peace of mind?

And maybe someone might say that they'd use them before deciding to interact with people at some event or something but, the risk of being a spreader given the increased interaction with people at such an event probably outweighs the confidence a non-guaranteed test would give you and so you are back in the same position. No?

You are assuming there is no benefit to work place for example flagging possible infection among their employees and making sure they don't go to work. Basically you are assuming that it makes no difference weather someone is infected or not as long as they are careful/stick to the rules. Rules and being careful limit the spread of infection they don't prevent it, only isolation can do that. No sane person will willingly self isolate if they don't have to.

So unless you suggest people stop going to work out of precaution I don't think antigen tests are some sort of placebo.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

You are assuming there is no benefit to work place for example flagging possible infection among their employees and making sure they don't go to work. Basically you are assuming that it makes no difference weather someone is infected or not as long as they are careful/stick to the rules. Rules and being careful limit the spread of infection they don't prevent it, only isolation can do that. No sane person will willingly self isolate if they don't have to.

So unless you suggest people stop going to work out of precaution I don't think antigen tests are some sort of placebo.

I'm not assuming anything.

But, while it would be useful for a company to know that some employees were definitely at risk of infection, introducing a test such as this could possibly have the effect that people put more faith in it than they should and so they don't continue with recommended practices as much as maybe they should because they are trusting the result of the test more than the latter.

I think this type of occurrence is more likely to happen than the former.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything.

But, while it would be useful for a company to know that some employees were definitely at risk of infection, introducing a test such as this could possibly have the effect that people put more faith in it than they should and so they don't continue with recommended practices as much as maybe they should because they are trusting the result of the test more than the latter.
.

Do you think co workers would suddenly start licking each if the test would come back negative?

It's the old church dogma that people won't behave unless they are scared of eternal damnation (Covid). So let's not allow any ambiguity.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you think co workers would suddenly start licking each if the test would come back negative?

It's the old church dogma that people won't behave unless they are scared of eternal damnation (Covid). So let's not allow any ambiguity.

I'm sorry. You're right. There's no room for anything else to happen between total isolation and licking each other. It's going to be one or the other.

Grolschevik

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm sorry. You're right. There's no room for anything else to happen between total isolation and licking each other. It's going to be one or the other.

That's what it's like where I work, anyway...

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

And maybe someone might say that they'd use them before deciding to interact with people at some event or something but, the risk of being a spreader given the increased interaction with people at such an event probably outweighs the confidence a non-guaranteed test would give you and so you are back in the same position. No?

Not if everyone at the event (realistically, we're talking about a shared office, or a family gathering) has taken the test; or if a few sons and daughters are meeting their vaccinated parents.

Antigen tests are useful when used in a coordinated way for an imminent activity. The evidence for that is pretty clear, and the expert today was at pains to point out that they're not useful beyond that.

One thing Pat didn't ask him, was about the confidence with which a test can detect Covid if the swab isn't properly applied. You have to really jam it up there, make your eyes water. Are people doing it that way? How much does that matter? That's what we need to know.

But the NPHET says No, so no guidance is forthcoming from them, or else they're not promoting the guidance.

meeeeh

It's the same as the masks last year. Even WHO made up their mind and they were still not recommended in Ireland because people couldn't be trusted with them.

Klonker

I thought Micheal Mina's interview was very informative. He really showed his knowledge in the field and made the comments from NPHET recently look very foolish.

I don't think people are understanding antigen testing properly. Some people have had to in factories throughout this pandemic. It's either very rarely test them with PCR and wait a day+ to get results, no test or test regularly with antigen tests. Whether they are tested or not people in these situations are very unlikely to follow social distancing even if possible. Which option would you take? I know which I'd take anyone, antigen testing 100%.

A lot of people will be going back to offices later this year. Again, do they do PCR testing very periodically, regular antigen testing or no testing? Again it's a no brainer to me and it's what will happen I've no doubt.

Tell me how

Klonker wrote: »

I thought Micheal Mina's interview was very informative. He really showed his knowledge in the field and made the comments from NPHET recently look very foolish.

I don't think people are understanding antigen testing properly. Some people have had to in factories throughout this pandemic. It's either very rarely test them with PCR and wait a day+ to get results, no test or test regularly with antigen tests. Whether they are tested or not people in these situations are very unlikely to follow social distancing even if possible. Which option would you take? I know which I'd take anyone, antigen testing 100%.

A lot of people will be going back to offices later this year. Again, do they do PCR testing very periodically, regular antigen testing or no testing? Again it's a no brainer to me and it's what will happen I've no doubt.

Neither. They get vaccinated.

BPKS

The interview yesterday about the current situation in Israel.

If Trump was still in power and this 'conflict' was on-going I am fairly positive that PK would be absolutely deriding the US President for essentially backing the Israeli offensive in his comments.

It got glossed over with barely a mention yesterday.

Don't get me wrong, it was laughable how poor a diplomat Trump was but giving the new fella a free pass on everything is poor broadcasting (again imagine PK and TLW if Trumps dog was biting all and sundry in the Whitehouse - they would have had 1 hour specials).

Cole

Yet another reference to antigen testing "for slow learners"...cue the smug sniggering. Give it a fcuking rest, Pat

HeidiHeidi

For the second day running I woke up to hear Pat banging on about antigen tests. He's not letting go.


Today was a reference to yesterday's talk on "antigen tests.... for dummies" (snigger snigger).


I'm not sure I can take any more.

ETA - snap with Cole!

Macy0161

Turned off when Rory Aherne on without any reference to his political past.

Cole

Macy0161 wrote: »

Turned off when Rory Aherne on without any reference to his political past.

Hearne...People before Profit candidate in the 2007 GE?

hotmail.com

BPKS wrote: »

The interview yesterday about the current situation in Israel.

If Trump was still in power and this 'conflict' was on-going I am fairly positive that PK would be absolutely deriding the US President for essentially backing the Israeli offensive in his comments.

It got glossed over with barely a mention yesterday.

Don't get me wrong, it was laughable how poor a diplomat Trump was but giving the new fella a free pass on everything is poor broadcasting (again imagine PK and TLW if Trumps dog was biting all and sundry in the Whitehouse - they would have had 1 hour specials).

Pat , like most Irish journalists, were careful to always criticise Trump, rather than American policy.

So at the moment, he has to criticise American policy, but can't bring himself to say bad things about the almighty America.