How often have we heard the phrase "...in an abundance of caution..." as justification for a decision during Covid?
Usually, the justification was for some decision that was otherwise indefensible.
Herd Immunity
One of my sisters-in-law is a retired nurse. God bless her, she administers vaccinations to the residents of Ingham County.
She was lamenting the resistance many residents had to the vaccination and despaired of ever reaching "herd immunity".
So I asked, what seemed to me, the obvious question "Can't we reach herd immunity without everybody getting vaccinated? Isn't it a combination of those who were immunized and those who actually GOT the disease?"
She poo-pooed my feeble, layman's understanding of immunology. "Nope, Joe. It doesn't work that way. Lot's of people who were diagnosed with Covid have almost no antibodies."
PCR
"Polymerase chain reaction is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA or RNA sample"
DNA and RNA will cheerfully replicate given certain conditions. It must be able to do that for cells to divide. Given enough generations, a single virus trapped in snot will register as a Covid positive test. That only means that the patient's mucus did its job in filtering out particles, not that the patient was infected and shedding Covid virus.
Kubota, for instance, worked in a facility with a person who registered positive for Covid. His test came back positive. He never had symptoms. He lives with us and we never had symptoms. I would happily bet $20that he was never really infected with Covid. Sure, he had some virus trapped in his nose-snot. But that is not "infected".
The 35 generations of PCR amplification was justified "...in the abundance of caution..." and now they don't know who really had Covid and who simply inhaled Covid without it causing an infection.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave
when first we practice to deceive."
Somehow, given government's extensive experience in disseminating, deceiving and outright telling of lies that they would have been smoother in their Covid narrative.
"...in an abundance of caution..." joins "I am from the government and here to help".
A LOT of nurses have VERY little actual knowledge of immunology.
ReplyDeleteThey are usually GREAT at following doctors orders and an experienced nurse can tell.....from experience....when a patient has significant issues. But their training is NOTHING like that of an actual physician when it comes to physiology. Even regarding fundamental anatomy a lot of nurses come up short. Just because someone is a nurse does NOT mean they are in any way an expert on medical care outside the narrow confines of nursing.
But I've known plenty of actual MD's that were sorely lacking in basic common sense. The ability to pass a test/boards in no way guarantees competence or even knowledge.
Type 1 and Type 2 errors.
ReplyDeleteBingo. Reducing one usually comes at the cost of increasing the other. The third point of the triangle is data. In theory, you can beat down both if you increase the amount of unique data you collect.
DeleteThe testing protocols should always have specified a consistent reporting scheme, showing the upper limit of amplifying cycle threshold values, but more importantly, the test results should have included how many cycles had been run when a positive result was returned -or- how many total cycles had been run with a negative result before concluding the test.
DeleteIt started to smell bad when they reduced the test cycles on the day of Biden's inauguration, thus erasing all of the 'positive' test results that occurred with the higher test cycle threshold.
They made it work because few people understand PCR, and how the number of itnerations makes a difference in theoutcome.
ReplyDeletePlus few people have a basic understanding of germ therory, so they played on the fear.
Having watched this pandemic being promoted, used, exaggerated and manipulated, and thousands of nursing home residents murdered to gain causality numbers, even though I'm in my 70s I will take my chances with the virus with a 99% survival rate before I will take a untested vaccine made and promoted and actually forced on us by the deep-state and their corporate partners. They always lie, cheat and steal so why believe them about anything.--ken
ReplyDeleteAsk your sister in law how China ended their pandemic without a vaccine. I’ll wait.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of what Harry Browne used to say- they break your leg, give you a crutch, and say... There, if it weren't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk.
ReplyDeleteI agree with coyoteken.
The PCR test is also how they were able to come up with the claim that their experimental gene therapy that they refer to as a vaccine is 95% effective. They ran the PCR tests of the test subjects at 20 cycles, instead of the fraudulent 35 or 40 cycles to define a "case". At 20 cycles, they will get only about a 5% positive test percentage. Thus, like magic, the 'vaccine' s 95% effective.
ReplyDeleteSo all these people tested positive, but never had the symptoms that would suggest infection by the virus.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like it wasn't all that contagious. It's either that or it wasn't all that serious if you did "get" it. One or the other.