15 thoughts on “Thursday’s Papers

  1. f_lawless


    Another excellent video from Ivor Cummins giving his data analysis-based perspective on the current panic surrounding “new cases” of Sars Cov 2. His graphs for Spain, Belgium, France Netherlands really hit home, visually, the stark contrast between the cases vs fatalities ratio observed at the height of the pandemic and what we’ve seen over the last coupe of months or so.

    As the video also covers, the crazy thing is that the same “new cases” panic happened at the end of the 2009 swine flu pandemic – albeit not on quite the same scale as is happening now.

    At the point in time when the swine flu pandemic had largely waned, a ramped up testing regime was implemented. They used the same type of unreliable PCR tests that are being used today which can’t distinguish between an active infection or viral debris. The sudden rise in cases prompted a series of corporate media articles stoking public fear of a new surge in the pandemic. But eventually the testing regime was abandoned as the rise in cases never corresponded to a rise in deaths.

    1. SOQ

      The graphs you are referring to come from someone called Pishpish Cat @PishPishCat and he or she shows how this ‘second wave’ is actually just more testing- because there is NO serious illness or fatalities in any European country.

      Testing on top and fatalities on the bottom- it is very different to the last time.


      So one of two things has happened. Either CoVid-19 has all of a sudden become completely harmless or the PCR tests are returning false positives- for whatever reason.

      If the second option is true then one can only assume it has been returning false positives right thorough from the begining of this thing.

      1. SOQ

        This is a paper submitted to the UK’s SAGE committee on the subject.

        Impact of false positives and negatives – 3 June 2020.


        “The RT-PCR assays used for the UK’s COVID-19 testing programme have been verified by PHE, and show over 95% sensitivity and specificity. This means that under laboratory conditions, these RT-PCR tests should never show more than 5% false positives or 5% false negatives.

        It is important to remember that laboratory testing verifies the analytical sensitivity and analytical specificity of the RT-PCR tests. They represent idealised testing. In a clinical or community setting there may be inefficient sampling, lab contamination, sample degradation or other sources of error that will lead to increased numbers of false positives or false negatives.

        The UK operational false positive rate is unknown. There are no published studies on the operational false positive rate of any national COVID-19 testing programme.”

        So the truth is- and they admit it- they don’t actually know what the margin of error actually is. While a MINIMUM 5% may not be so important during the middle of a virus season- it can have huge implications after it has passed when positives from dead viral remnants are treated the same as live.

        Locking down towns and cites- and in our case entire counties- for a threat that now doesn’t exist, is a distinct possibility,

        1. Cian

          So it could have a false positive of 20%; it could be 5% it could be 0.001%

          Actually it can’t be true.

          In the UK yesterday there were 90,779 pillar 2 (general population) tests performed with 945 positives. This is 1.04% positive rate.
          But for pillar 2 (hospital) tests there were 64 positive from 56,755 cases or a 0.11% positive.

          Same type of test, just different cohort of people tested. With very different rates.

          The false-positive must be less than 0.1%.

          1. SOQ

            As I read it they are saying 5% in laboratory settings but more in the field?

            This would back up your statement of – same type of test, just different cohort of people tested. With very different rates- except you miss the circumstances factor. Hospitals would tend to be more accurate I expect.

            None of this even addresses the claim that dead remnants can flag as positive of course.

          2. Cian

            over 95% sensitivity and specificity. This means that under laboratory conditions, these RT-PCR tests should never show more than 5% false positives or 5% false negatives.
            This is saying that it gives the correct result at least 95% of the time. Or. it won’t give a wrong result MORE than 5% of the time.

            But that is just the absolute worst case scenatio. It doesn’t say that it is exactly 95% – that 5% will be wrong.

            From the example I gave earlier, if there is only a 0.1% positive rate yesterday – even if every single on of those was a false positive, there is at most a 0.1% positive (so it is at least 99.9% accurate).

            Note: a test can have different sensitivity and specificity – it can be 99.9% correct for positives; but only 95% correct for negatives.

          3. SOQ

            Ok well according to Ireland’s COVID-19 Data Hub- which I assume is a government site- the rate is 1.7% in the past 7 days?

            The other stats support the false test narrative- 40 confirmed cases and no deaths- the 1 recorded is from way back. Only 12 in Hospital with 6 of them are in ICU. You can see from the ‘Daily Confirmed Cases and Deaths’ graph than the Confirmed Deaths has flat lined- meaning zero.


            I don’t know how much more evidence people need to accept that this Corona Virus is behaving like a Corona Virus- meaning it is seasonal and for the time being at least, it is gone.

          4. SOQ

            keep telling yourself that dear- especially when everyone else is giving you that ‘special status’ look.

      2. Cian

        Pishpish’s graphs with cases above deaths all seem to be using the case report date for the top graph; this is misleading for March/April because of the early delay is testing.
        These graphs are interesting none the less.

    2. Cian

      It is an interesting video.

      I agree that back in March/April that the positive tests were most likely to be of people that were showing symptoms – so there was a cohort of people that weren’t tested (but if they had been would have been positive). Now we are testing more people and catching many that won’t show symptoms so won’t end up in hospital/dead.

      I’d be a bit suspect of the curves shown for positive cases vs deaths – and peaks of they two are aligned. I suspect they are based on the *result* date rather than the *test* date. In the early stages the results took days (or weeks) to arrive.

      I don’t know if you’ve seen the curve of the “Number of confirmed COVID-19 cases notified in Ireland by epidemiological date” this is the second chart on page 2.

      you can see that based on epidemiological (a proxy for the test date), Ireland never had more than 600 cases in a day – but based on the notification date we had a big spike with 12 separate days over 600 (and 6 of those over 800) – but this is because it took time to get results back. Since about mid-May, when the tests were processed promptly, the two curves are a lot closer.

  2. GiggidyGoo

    In other news, Michilin Martin rushes to the aid of Boris Johnson to help him announce the Centenary of Northern Ireland celebrations, – to celebrate all that has happened there in the 100 years.
    Bualadh Bos.

    1. Jack Of Ireland

      Try a bit of historical what if. Imagine if partition had not happen and the civil war that would have ensued, the civil war without the unionists was bad, with them it would have been utterly horrific.
      Still seem a weird thing for our glorious leader to celebrate

  3. Johnny Green

    you’d better kill the king.

    Richie Neal is one if the not the most important and powerful Irish American politicans.He’s an old school throwback, to power brokers like Tip O’Neil,Pat Moynihan,Peter King and John Bohner.

    he’s in the fight of his life for his seat in Massachusetts,dirty tricks or senior hurling ?


    “This will sink his campaign,” predicted a College Democrat leader hoping to work for Rep. Richard Neal.”


Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link