COVID-19

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

You can judge me however you like. It doesnt change you cant go by the defined words they used let alone answer a question from me. I throw lots of different questions/angles out to see which you or someone else wants to talk aboot. Basically like choose your own adventure. However, you and a few others choose to make it about me. You fail to conversate. The verbage said both differentiate and facilitate detection btw but that doesnt really matter does it.

Quoted for posterity. I never thought I'd see someone say they can redefine the English language so it says whatever they want it to say.

If I encounter a heap of shit on a trail, I could engage with those around me as to whether it's dog shit, bear shit, deer shit, or some other shit. Or, I could "fail to conversate" about shit, and just make my own decision as to whether or not to step in it.

Ultimately though ... it's still shit.

Posted by: Sethimus

fully vaxxed 🙌

Posted by: Couch_Surfer

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

I know you don't know this but ill take the cdc link over any news link let alone a Canadian one that might only consult with physicians ( not microbiologists). 

You guys love the easy thinking route. "Oh someone called themselves a fact checker, I'll trust that over the cdc or some guy I hate online linking it."

Meanwhile for the record, I've been saying don't trust anyone since this started.

I’ll put as much effort into looking into your stupid anti-vax lies as you do.  

Hey! It's an experimental gene therapy remember? It is not a vaccine. 

There you go posting fake news now. That shits more contagious than the 'rona.

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

So tell me again how that makes me a liar if it does say the test does not differentiate?

Does a test that only identifies COVID "facilitate detection and differentiation" of COVID and influenza?  To me it sounds like they are recommending a test that will identify both "in preparation for flu season".

To me it simply means it cant tell them apart.

The current PCR test for COVID-19 will tell you if have SARS-CoV-2. The current PCR test for COVID-19 will NOT tell you if you have influenza. The current PCR test is SPECIFIC to the COVID-19 virus. Does that clear it up?

Lol

So when did they come up with the test for the delta variant?

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

You can judge me however you like. It doesnt change you cant go by the defined words they used let alone answer a question from me. I throw lots of different questions/angles out to see which you or someone else wants to talk aboot. Basically like choose your own adventure. However, you and a few others choose to make it about me. You fail to conversate. The verbage said both differentiate and facilitate detection btw but that doesnt really matter does it.

Quoted for posterity. I never thought I'd see someone say they can redefine the English language so it says whatever they want it to say.

Which dictionary are we going to debate now? I'll even bring a thesaurus yo!

It's kinda nice to see that the BC gov't has made a move to region specific health orders in light of the slight uptick in positive test being mainly in the interior health region.

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

So tell me again how that makes me a liar if it does say the test does not differentiate?

Does a test that only identifies COVID "facilitate detection and differentiation" of COVID and influenza?  To me it sounds like they are recommending a test that will identify both "in preparation for flu season".

Don't they already flu tests? So they'd take the sample, if necessary, run it through a pcr to provide enough samples for both tests and then test? 

Other than a binary pregnancy test,  what test provides two results?

Posted by: syncro

It's kinda nice to see that the BC gov't has made a move to region specific health orders in light of the slight uptick in positive test being mainly in the interior health region.

That’s a good step.  It seems to me that governments are hoping for the business community to take actual leadership on having vaccine requirements.

They've opened things up, and more importantly, dropped the mask mandate.  There's going to be a bigger surge than the tripling we've seen in the last 7 to 10 days.

Vaccination rate for two doses is around 60% for people 12 and over.  Herd immunity requires more than 70% of the total population.

Herd immunity number is a calc based on reproductive spread.  Delta repro is much higher, so herd calc is unfortunately also much higher.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

So tell me again how that makes me a liar if it does say the test does not differentiate?

Does a test that only identifies COVID "facilitate detection and differentiation" of COVID and influenza?  To me it sounds like they are recommending a test that will identify both "in preparation for flu season".

Don't they already flu tests? So they'd take the sample, if necessary, run it through a pcr to provide enough samples for both tests and then test? 

Other than a binary pregnancy test,  what test provides two results?

Currently, there is one PCR test for flu (which may be multiplexed for the different flu strains, im not sure on that), and a separate one for COVID-19. The new test that they are speaking of will combine the two tests into one assay. The targets of each PCR test are specific, so combining them into one assay will allow them to determine if a sample has COVID-19 OR flu (or theoretically both). We multiplex many assays in the lab for similar reasons. Multiplexing can have 2, 3, 4 or more individual targets in the same assay. It speeds things up, saves on reagents and gives you more information from a single assay. All the correct positive and negative controls need to be in place for the assay to be interpreted correctly.

I'm actually a little surprised that the trolling has gone on for over a hundred pages. 

That's a pretty big commitment tbh.

Posted by: Couch_Surfer

Posted by: syncro

It's kinda nice to see that the BC gov't has made a move to region specific health orders in light of the slight uptick in positive test being mainly in the interior health region.

That’s a good step.  It seems to me that governments are hoping for the business community to take actual leadership on having vaccine requirements.

Kelowna already seemed to have more than their share of people that acted like wearing a mask was akin to a ball and chain.  I can't imagine what working retail and trying to tell these idiots that they need a mask again must be like.

Posted by: chupacabra

Kelowna already seemed to have more than their share of people that acted like wearing a mask was akin to a ball and chain.  I can't imagine what working retail and trying to tell these idiots that they need a mask again must be like.

I'm still skeptical/divided about masks. I think they have their purpose, but in situations where they could be seen to provide benefit they're either impractical or won't be worn anyways. I don't know if there'll ever be any sort of conclusive proof as to their effectiveness or as to what percentage of a difference they'll make. Tashi's meta analysis article he posted a while back had some good things in it, but I think it was too contradictory to be held up as sort of conclusion that masks are necessary.