The Great Testing Con

It's likely higher than 99.5

We report deaths within 28 days of a positive test. They could have had a heartattack after 10 days and be unrelated. But it's gone down as covid.

Unless they do post mortams on everyone, then it's just best guesses

 

Exactly! Holier-than-thou attitudes like this really irritate me. There are a lot more very good reasons to travel than just to have a beach holiday. It’s called normal living. I remember when we used to have that, somewhere in the not too distant past. It’s way past time to start again. If we don’t……well, what’s the point?

 

I know all that, it's also worth remembering that things such as heart attacks can be caused by Covid, so just because somebody died of a heart attack or some other common thing does not mean it was not a death caused by Covid.
There are also Covid deaths which were missed and not counted in the figures, although these are likely to be less than ones wrongly counted as Covid deaths.

That's not what I took issue with though. What I took issue with was Loko using a figure that extrapolates out to 350,000 people dead and presenting it as small and insignificant, which is clearly what he was trying to do.

 

That’s not how it read to me, I think you’re twisting his words there. It’s clear there is a global exploitation going on regarding testing, and Loko rightly points out that it’s over the top for a virus with over a 99% survival rate, which is true by the way. That doesn’t discount the dead, or disrespect them. People are profiteering, and all this testing really isn’t necessary. Also, over £500 in tests to travel to and from this country is beyond a joke and highlights the manipulation.

 

I fully agree with this. Its hard to use the word 'selfish' though as its clear we aren't all in it together and even reading all the threads on the board this last couple of weeks where there has been a lot of justification for personal choices I think its fair to say we are all selfish.

 

Maybe I did read it wrong, but I don't see any way that post reads where 99.5% is not presented in a "this is a very high percentage". That's what I take issue with, in the grand scheme of things it's really not a high number.

 

The thing I took issue with was that you presented it as a very high number. "for a virus with a 99.5% survival rate". Please tell me how that doesn't read as "This number is so high and it means these steps are not necessary". That number means 350,000 deaths if the whole population gets infected. That's not something that can be dismissed in such a way to me.

 

I don't think survival rate is a particularly good metric though. Suggests success = not dead. Pretty low bar set there.

On testing, you have to ask who's making the fortunes out of all this, and what will we have to show for it in future. From what I can see, a lot of money has gone to private companies and 'mega labs', with an emphasis on being able to do a massive number of tests every day. But little done in terms of scaling up NHS lab capacity, and community testing which means you have scenarios where schools are waiting for multiple days for a test result to be returned before letting a bubble back into school.

And as for the prices of testing for international travel, as Loko pointed out. Well, they're just a rip off. Somebody's making fortunes on that.

 

Not necessarily! My son and a colleague at work both tested positive, with no symptoms of any sort at any stage, and just as infectious as someone with full-blown symptoms. I'm more than sure they weren't the only two!

 

It’s definitely not just best guess. All reporting systems have their weaknesses but ours isn’t a bad reflection of the true picture. The ONS publishes data on number of deaths where COVID is mentioned on the death certificate and those numbers are actually higher than the ‘official’ ones regularly reported on the news (153k on the latest figures - you can have a look here https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths).

And if it’s mentioned on the death certificate it’s overwhelmingly likely to have been a significant contributory factor in a person’s death - they don’t just go ‘I’m busy, just stick down as COVID and stop bothering me’.

 

This is exactly what I'm saying. "for a virus with such a high survivability rate". 99.5% is not a high survivability rate. Across the whole population that's 350,000 people dead, not even mentioning the countless others with long term issues.

 

Covid is recorded as a contributing factor on my late brother's death certificate. I am stone cold certain Covid had nothing to do with his death.

 

That isn't what I said.

If someone had a positive result and happened to die within 28 days. Its automatically assumed and recorded.

Now take the figures (if you can find them) of people who contracted the virus whilst in hospital..... key words, already in hospital. So they are in for something serious enough already.

Is it not feasible that they died of something irrespective of covid. I'm not suggesting it may not have contributed, but I bet there's more deaths put down to covid than the true cause, just because its a figure that is used for reporting. Even the link you posted says the same.

My original point was, true figures are not known because not everyone has a post mortam.

So by the very definition of its reporting requirement, it's a figure that's a best guess is it not?

 

Generally with a death certificate there are four fields to complete for cause of death - 1a), b), and c) for direct causes of death, and 2) for contributory factors which weren’t necessarily the direct cause. So for example, someone who caught Covid and began to recover but then died of a stroke might have ‘sub arachnoid haemorrhage’ written in the 1a) section and Covid in the 2) - they didn’t die of Covid but it contributed to their death. So it depends if you consider expert medical opinion a best guess or not? Doctors have to be able to stand by what they put on a death certificate cos they could easily be asked to defend it for an investigation or in court.

Not saying that you were doing this, but there’s a massive amount of b0llocks all over the Internet that suggests most of the data is made up or falsified in some way, which simply isn’t true. Like I said in my previous post, no reporting system is perfect and ours might be out by a few, but it’s not out by 30k for example.

@Shy Talk - sorry to hear about your brother pal, that’s a terrible thing to have to go through.

 

OK fair dos.

Be nice to know the split of section 1 and 2's.

That might be a more better reflection if they reported on them both. (Its not like the info wouldn't be available)

I'm just uneasy on this whole within 28 days. It could of course work the other way around. Died of covid after 28 days....