POI for the Coroners Society of Ireland, Nphet’s figures for deaths may be innacurate

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not sure what I said but it's 48 from no symptoms. In my experience these things hang around for a week or two.
It's the PCR test is the issue, Doctor confirms not Covid no test required, creche insist on pcr test, they actually said different Doctors have different opinions hence they can only trust the pcr and they don't recognize antigen tests.

Come on now. You were questioning the crèche saying the child needed to stay home for 48 hours. The crèche were right.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So the GP advised the child has a snotty nose, does not require a covid test and can return to creche immediatley.
Creche have said no she can't, has to be sympton free of covid for 48hrs, I'm really stuggling to get past it's not covid thing to them, there's no one in the creche with it, there's no one at home with it and the doctor says it's not covid.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's easy throw that out when you've nothing else, you've been called out a few times today and not by me from talking absolute manure.

Doctors don't know what they're doing, seriously take a look in the mirror before you call anyone else wrong.

The doctor was wrong. He applied the guidance incorrectly. The right guidance is “probably not Covid. Keep the child hone for 48 hours. If the symptoms aren’t improving 48 hours call again, if they are they can return”

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Come on now. You were questioning the crèche saying the child needed to stay home for 48 hours. The crèche were right.

I have her since Tuesday, if she has a snotty nose on Monday she still can't return, only if she has a pcr test to prove the snotty nose isn't Covid. Creche are as wrong as hell.

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It wasn't false information, it's very simple the pcr is picking up long gone viruses that was my point. There's nothing false about that statement.

Do you agree that fact is true?

People that are tested either have symptoms or are a close contact with a positive case. This is not a random population. This is a cohort of people who either have virus specific symptoms or are known to have been exposed.
From this cohort of people, a positive result is highly likely to be a true positive.

The only caveat to that now is the walk in test centres where people can have a test without symptoms. But this is still not random testing. They have been set up in areas where the virus is known to be transmitted in the community.

So while random testing of a population may pick up old viral material in those that were previously infected, the testing criteria is indicative that when you find positive results in a population that is likely to have the virus, then those results are likely true positives and not false ones.

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

People that are tested either have symptoms or are a close contact with a positive case. This is not a random population. This is a cohort of people who either have virus specific symptoms or are known to have been exposed.
From this cohort of people, a positive result is highly likely to be a true positive.

Wrong. That's false information all you need to do is read back through my posts.

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

People that are tested either have symptoms or are a close contact with a positive case. This is not a random population. This is a cohort of people who either have virus specific symptoms or are known to have been exposed.
From this cohort of people, a positive result is highly likely to be a true positive.

The only caveat to that now is the walk in test centres where people can have a test without symptoms. But this is still not random testing. They have been set up in areas where the virus is known to be transmitted in the community.

So while random testing of a population may pick up old viral material in those that were previously infected, the testing criteria is indicative that when you find positive results in a population that is likely to have the virus, then those results are likely true positives and not false ones.

And anyone tested positive within 12 weeks of a confirmed case with no symptoms is not counted as positive
Plus a myriad of other controls to reduce false positives.

If we look to Israel. Current positive rate is 0.2%. If one was to assume there is no longer any Covid in Israel, which would be incorrect, that would suggest false positives could be at no more than 0.2%. In truth, it’s far less again

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

People that are tested either have symptoms or are a close contact with a positive case. This is not a random population.

The more I look at that statement it's a blatant and obvious lie to discredit me. Walk in test centers are random along with people being forced by places such as creches, schools and work.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The more I look at that statement it's a blatant and obvious lie to discredit me. Walk in test centers are random along with people being forced by places such as creches, schools and work.

You don’t have an idea what random is, do you?

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

You don’t have an idea what random is, do you?

Her statement is false.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Her statement is false.

People
Who
Are
Tested
Because
They
Have
Symptoms
Or
Are
Contacts
Of
Confirmed
Cases
Are
Not
Random

Need to speak more slowly?

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The more I look at that statement it's a blatant and obvious lie to discredit me. Walk in test centers are random along with people being forced by places such as creches, schools and work.

You're doing just fine discrediting yourself with false information.

Test centres are open to anyone but the location of them is not random. They are in places with a higher incidence of the virus and known community transmission.

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

You're doing just fine discrediting yourself with false information.

Test centres are open to anyone but the location of them is not random. They are in places with a higher incidence of the virus and known community transmission.

You conviently left out the rest of the places I mentioned inlcuding the one which brought the subject up.


I haven't given any false information, you've gave plenty of waffle to discredit it though, i'll leave yourself and the dynamite duo to it, enjoy the echo.

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You conviently left out the rest of the places I mentioned inlcuding the one which brought the subject up.


I haven't given any false information, you've gave plenty of waffle to discredit it though, i'll leave yourself and the dynamite duo to it, enjoy the echo.

Any creche or place of work requiring people to stay off work and get a test is still not random.

Being tested for having symptoms or being exposed is not random.

A child with the sniffles still should stay away from their creche until their symptoms are gone regardless of covid.

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Any creche or place of work requiring people to stay off work and get a test is still not random.

Being tested for having symptoms or being exposed is not random.

A child with the sniffles still should stay away from their creche until their symptoms are gone regardless of covid.

Look your statement wasn't accurate and your laymans opinion that a snotty nose means a child should be excluded from an education is naive.
The child was not exposed to Covid and does not show any symptoms, the Dr confirmed a pcr test is not warranted and they can safely return to school immediately.
No matter what way your spin it people are tested randomly and that's a prime example of it, I'd say a lot of parents might just buy into the cult and get them tested when a possibility exists they could test positive based on a test with a major flaw which you are well aware of and tried to excuse it by your false claim every test is warranted and not random.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Look your statement wasn't accurate and your laymans opinion that a snotty nose means a child should be excluded from an education is naive.
The child was not exposed to Covid and does not show any symptoms, the Dr confirmed a pcr test is not warranted and they can safely return to school immediately.
No matter what way your spin it people are tested randomly and that's a prime example of it, I'd say a lot of parents might just buy into the cult and get them tested when a possibility exists they could test positive based on a test with a major flaw which you are well aware of and tried to excuse it by your false claim every test is warranted and not random.

I'd take the word of posters who actually works in the area of medical testing and has provided plenty of evidence around this, over someone who swore blind on here that the supply chain was about to collapse and the army was going to be on the street in March 2020, according to their secret retailers whatsapp group, and has been basically posting the same level of crap since.

Peregrine

drunkmonkey wrote: »

O’Connor, who acts as a public information officer for the Coroners Society of Ireland, said that recording Covid-19 as the principal cause of death when a person was already terminally ill raised questions about the accuracy of the figures.

Not surprised. Coroners in this country are hopelessly bad.

Coroner's service 'biased, overly influenced by gardaí', finds damning report
"Families also reported some inquests accepted deaths in certain circumstances as ‘inevitable’". That sounds familiar.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40271030.html

normanoffside

Martina1991 wrote: »

The only caveat to that now is the walk in test centres where people can have a test without symptoms. But this is still not random testing. They have been set up in areas where the virus is known to be transmitted in the community.

You mean places like Kerry which has had the lowest level of Covid for months?

https://www.radiokerry.ie/news/walk-in-covid-19-test-centre-will-open-in-kerry-tomorrow-233832

normanoffside

normanoffside wrote: »

You mean places like Kerry which has had the lowest level of Covid for months?

https://www.radiokerry.ie/news/walk-in-covid-19-test-centre-will-open-in-kerry-tomorrow-233832

How do the “loads of false positives” brigade explain the current positive rates in Israel?

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Look your statement wasn't accurate and your laymans opinion that a snotty nose means a child should be excluded from an education is naive.
The child was not exposed to Covid and does not show any symptoms, the Dr confirmed a pcr test is not warranted and they can safely return to school immediately.
No matter what way your spin it people are tested randomly and that's a prime example of it, I'd say a lot of parents might just buy into the cult and get them tested when a possibility exists they could test positive based on a test with a major flaw which you are well aware of and tried to excuse it by your false claim every test is warranted and not random.

You've contradicted yourself in your own post.
If your child has symptoms, that is sufficient means for having a test.

People having covid tests for having covid symptoms is not random. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

Flange/Flanders

Deleted User wrote: »

The doctor was wrong. He applied the guidance incorrectly. The right guidance is “probably not Covid. Keep the child hone for 48 hours. If the symptoms aren’t improving 48 hours call again, if they are they can return”

I'm sorry, but you cant say the doc was wrong based on incomplete information. The doctor would have taken a lot more stringent history than you have here (I'm a doctor BTW). But you are right, the child should be staying home for 48 hours if it wasnt Covid, if it was its obviously longer.

Flange/Flanders

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Look your statement wasn't accurate and your laymans opinion that a snotty nose means a child should be excluded from an education is naive.
The child was not exposed to Covid and does not show any symptoms, the Dr confirmed a pcr test is not warranted and they can safely return to school immediately.
No matter what way your spin it people are tested randomly and that's a prime example of it, I'd say a lot of parents might just buy into the cult and get them tested when a possibility exists they could test positive based on a test with a major flaw which you are well aware of and tried to excuse it by your false claim every test is warranted and not random.

You know ye could both be right......

The child might not meet criteria for testing under HPSC guidelines but.........as per the guidelines they should still be kept home for 48hours

drunkmonkey

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

You know ye could both be right......

The child might not meet criteria for testing under HPSC guidelines but.........as per the guidelines they should still be kept home for 48hours

They want her home for 14 days if she hasn't a negative PCR test and are claiming they're the guidelines.

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

You've contradicted yourself in your own post.
If your child has symptoms, that is sufficient means for having a test.

People having covid tests for having covid symptoms is not random. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

A snotty nose is not a symptom of Covid-19, how many times do you need to be told she was checked out by a doctor who said she doesn't need a test, there's no covid cases in the creche and none at home.
Testing her is random, stop trying to make out there's no element of randomness with who is forced or volunteers to go for a test.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

This has to be the funniest thing the grifter has posted. “I am going to arbitrarily exclude half the pandemic and include 5 months prior to the pandemic to measure excess deaths during the pandemic”. Anyone who falls for this must be as thick as pigsh*t

You got a free pass on this while the thread was dragged off topic.

Do we take it your happy with the RTE methadology that disagrees with NPHET? Or what way would you measure them, personally I'd take it as a year and measure from the start of January until the end of December and let the figures fall where they may.
RTE including two flu seasons does present the figures worse than they are.

Flange/Flanders

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They want her home for 14 days if she hasn't a negative PCR test and are claiming they're the guidelines.

Creches can test to go off on solo runs, that went on pre covid as well. Wanting antibiotics for respiratory infections for example. The child should be excluded for 48 hours tho.

drunkmonkey

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Creches can test to go off on solo runs, that went on pre covid as well. Wanting antibiotics for respiratory infections for example. The child should be excluded for 48 hours tho.

A solo run in right, it's not the first time I've had to throw it up to them, the Doctors even had to call to give them a few doses of cop on, I've a feeling they don't like each other. She hasn't been there in 5 days now I'm sure it'll be all fine on Monday morning.
When I say snotty nose it's clear not green, I'd say it more of an allergy than anything, I had to wipe her nose twice yesterday it's not as if it's flowing out of her.

If doctors were allowed do rapid tests they could cut out a lot of this messing, I'm not aware of any kids getting Covid in the creche it's well run but they're sending 12mt + the whole time.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You got a free pass on this while the thread was dragged off topic.

Do we take it your happy with the RTE methadology that disagrees with NPHET? Or what way would you measure them, personally I'd take it as a year and measure from the start of January until the end of December and let the figures fall where they may.
RTE including two flu seasons does present the figures worse than they are.

Rte did not include 2 flu seasons. They measured the 12 months from start of March to end of February. Within that is the tail end of one flu season and the start of another, but overall only one full flu season. The deliberate misrepresentation by Cummings is contemptible and the amount of people who seem otherwise intelligent who buy the nonsense is extremely worrying

astrofool

How is drunkmonkeys argument with a creche about kids with snotty noses anything to do with the death rate from COVID?

(however, if you're saying it's a well run creche with no COVID cases, then maybe what they're doing is working and it would help to go along with rather than argue with them).

CalamariFritti

Deleted User wrote: »

Rte did not include 2 flu seasons. They measured the 12 months from start of March to end of February. Within that is the tail end of one flu season and the start of another, but overall only one full flu season. The deliberate misrepresentation by Cummings is contemptible and the amount of people who seem otherwise intelligent who buy the nonsense is extremely worrying

Mortality tables go from January to December not from from March to February. It has always been done like that and therefore its the only way to stay comparable. Doing it any other way is trying to manipulate numbers one way or the other. Picking shorter timespans like 1 or 2 or 3 months is even more problematic (to use a word that shouldn't offend).

Another thing that people should not forget when talking about mortality tables and excess deaths is that most people and outlets compare 2020 to an average of the last 3 or 5 or whatever years before 2020. And they call everything above that average 'excess deaths'.

But of course the nature of averages is so that some values will be above average and some will be below. Meaning if we compile an average for say 2009 to 2019 then we had excess deaths in many of those years. And years below the average too of course.

Meaning if 2020 actually had 'excess deaths' that alone does not yet mean something extraordinary is happening. Extraordinary would be if 2020 had a death rate remarkably higher than the above average years in the comparable timespan. My understanding is that 2020 in Ireland is not even above average.

Flange/Flanders

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Mortality tables go from January to December not from from March to February. It has always been done like that and therefore its the only way to stay comparable. Doing it any other way is trying to manipulate numbers one way or the other. Picking shorter timespans like 1 or 2 or 3 months is even more problematic (to use a word that shouldn't offend).

Another thing that people should not forget when talking about mortality tables and excess deaths is that most people and outlets compare 2020 to an average of the last 3 or 5 or whatever years before 2020. And they call everything above that average 'excess deaths'.

But of course the nature of averages is so that some values will be above average and some will be below. Meaning if we compile an average for say 2009 to 2019 then we had excess deaths in many of those years. And years below the average too of course.

Meaning if 2020 actually had 'excess deaths' that alone does not yet mean something extraordinary is happening. Extraordinary would be if 2020 had a death rate remarkably higher than the above average years in the comparable timespan. My understanding is that 2020 in Ireland is not even above average.

A significant confounder in that is that Covid wasnt allowed to run unabated through the community, we had significant measures in place to limit its spread. So if you're implying that Covid doesnt have any effect on excess mortality, then you're interpretation is flawed.