All borders to reopen.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only adult flaunts rules every one else has to abide by!:
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian under fire over breach of NSW Health isolation rules after coronavirus test
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian under fire over breach of NSW Health isolation rules after coronavirus test
At some stage balance and perspective has to be reintroduced into discussions, the current tribalism and outright hate which has become the norm doesn't allow for anything like a fair and balanced discussion.
You hate Gladys and anything she touches automatically is sh1t - fine, so be it.
I suppose Chairman Dan's the other end of the spectrum where everything he touches is gold - irrespective of his "creeping assumption" position which to anyone with half a brain was stupidity and bullsh1t squared.
Maybe Taylor Swift got it right - the haters gonna hate hate hate - no discussion required, QED.
Border open from the 1st for Sydney residents.
Pilots who have had to isolate after testing can’t have friends over at their place, whether it’s 1 or 100 makes no difference. Leadership means lead from the front, no special exemptions based on status.
Never denied that point. It’s the subsequent implication that hospital and medicos are deliberately lying and over inflating Covid numbers for that extra cash that is not backed by any evidence. From your article:
Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting."
Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She did not isolate as required by NSW Health rules, continuing to meet with unrelated people in her office whilst waiting for test results. Doesn’t matter if it was 1 or 100 people she came into contact with. Someone who has undertaken a Covid test is assumed positive until confirmed negative.
Pilots who have had to isolate after testing can’t have friends over at their place, whether it’s 1 or 100 makes no difference. Leadership means lead from the front, no special exemptions based on status.
Pilots who have had to isolate after testing can’t have friends over at their place, whether it’s 1 or 100 makes no difference. Leadership means lead from the front, no special exemptions based on status.
Hanging's effective but a bit boring, beheading maybe would be more exciting and entertaining for the gathered throng, maybe machine gunning in half would be a nice modern touch - if not a bit gruesome.
So many choices - so few politicians!
Don’t hold your breath. I mean, any small outbreak and she will click those fingers.
Would you still agree to a national approach to state borders if it mirrored the current strict national approach to international borders (basically no free movement until a vaccine)?
Interesting way of looking at 120 years of Swedish data.
1918 was the Spanish flu.
Each month is a colour. Red is April.
There were more deaths in April. That was C19.
But by the start of November
2020 was a bit worse than 2019
2020 was about the same as 2014, 15, 16, 17 and 18
2020 was a bit better than 2010, 11, 12 and 13.
Now maybe the last 6 weeks of 2020 will see a significant spike. Hopefully not, but maybe.
But that does not look likely given most European countries are experiencing lower mortality now compared to the 1st wave.
1918 was the Spanish flu.
Each month is a colour. Red is April.
There were more deaths in April. That was C19.
But by the start of November
2020 was a bit worse than 2019
2020 was about the same as 2014, 15, 16, 17 and 18
2020 was a bit better than 2010, 11, 12 and 13.
Now maybe the last 6 weeks of 2020 will see a significant spike. Hopefully not, but maybe.
But that does not look likely given most European countries are experiencing lower mortality now compared to the 1st wave.
https://www.postoj.sk/65044/mnohe-ob...le-od-alkoholu
This pathologist is making a critical distinction between
SARS-CoV-2 ( the virus)
and
C19 (the clinical disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus).
It is a bit muddled here when he talks about "SARS-Co-2 infection" not being C19 (by definition, SARS-CoV-2 infection = C19). I presume he is talking about a positive PCR test where the patient is "colonised" by SARS-CoV-2 but with no actual invasive infection. Google translate can miss nuances. But I think that is what he means. That makes sense - we often swab a skin ulcer on a foot and will usually grow some bacteria, but most often these bacteria are simply colonising the ulcer (i.e. they are living on the ulcer and can be isolated in a lab), but the bacteria are not actually causing an infection, and antibiotics won't help as the ulcer is really caused by vascular disease or diabetes or something else.
So I think he is saying they had 366 C19 deaths (later increased to 390). But a further 127 deaths where the person had a positive PCR but did not have C19 (as no infection) and hence could not have died from C19.
The guy is making a lot of sense. Mortui Vivos Docent, the dead teach the living.
However in systems where you don't do an autopsy (rates are very low in many countries, and rates have decreased further this year due to concerns about viral transmission), you will over-count C19 deaths. If someone dies, there is a positive PCR, there is no other obvious cause of death, then the death is considered as C19.
Lots of old people die without an apparent cause. Something other than "old age" has to be written on a death certificate. So it is often put down to "dementia" or "heart failure" or something vague. But if you have a positive PCR and there is no other obvious cause, then the death will be attributed to C19.
There have been 4 previous viral outbreaks in the PCR era - SARS, MERS, Zika, and Ebola.
With ALL 4 of these previous outbreaks, CDC and WHO agreed that a person with an initial positive PCR required 2 further things to be diagnosed as a case
i) a repeat confirmatory PCR test
AND
ii) clinical features of infection
That all changed with C19. A positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test = C19. No repeat test. No clinical features (as a large asymptomatic % is accepted as being part of the disease).
China however still requires a person to have a positive test (not clear if repeated) AND clinical features to be considered a case. They will still isolate and track positive PCR, but they are not cases.
Regarding the need for a confirmatory PCR test:
One study of positive SARS-CoV-2 samples tested the same sample a further 2 times (so each sample was tested 3 times). Note they didn't get another sample from the patient - they simply re-processed the sample a further 2 times.
55% of the time, the 2nd and/or the 3rd test were positive, and so the initial positive was considered a true positive
45% of the time, both the 2nd and 3rd test were negative, and so the initial positive was considered a false positive.
This pathologist is making a critical distinction between
SARS-CoV-2 ( the virus)
and
C19 (the clinical disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus).
It is a bit muddled here when he talks about "SARS-Co-2 infection" not being C19 (by definition, SARS-CoV-2 infection = C19). I presume he is talking about a positive PCR test where the patient is "colonised" by SARS-CoV-2 but with no actual invasive infection. Google translate can miss nuances. But I think that is what he means. That makes sense - we often swab a skin ulcer on a foot and will usually grow some bacteria, but most often these bacteria are simply colonising the ulcer (i.e. they are living on the ulcer and can be isolated in a lab), but the bacteria are not actually causing an infection, and antibiotics won't help as the ulcer is really caused by vascular disease or diabetes or something else.
So I think he is saying they had 366 C19 deaths (later increased to 390). But a further 127 deaths where the person had a positive PCR but did not have C19 (as no infection) and hence could not have died from C19.
The guy is making a lot of sense. Mortui Vivos Docent, the dead teach the living.
However in systems where you don't do an autopsy (rates are very low in many countries, and rates have decreased further this year due to concerns about viral transmission), you will over-count C19 deaths. If someone dies, there is a positive PCR, there is no other obvious cause of death, then the death is considered as C19.
Lots of old people die without an apparent cause. Something other than "old age" has to be written on a death certificate. So it is often put down to "dementia" or "heart failure" or something vague. But if you have a positive PCR and there is no other obvious cause, then the death will be attributed to C19.
Yesterday, korona.gov.sk reported 366 victims of Covid-19. What would be this number if we also added those victims who were positive for the coronavirus but died of another cause?
As of November 9, we have 366 deaths with Covid-19 (on November 10, the number increased by 24, ed. Note). We also have 127 deaths with SARS-CoV-2 infection detected, but these patients did not have Covid-19 and we only report them as infected in the statistics. It can be seen from these numbers that this is a significant difference. So if we didn't do a detailed investigation, we would have had significantly more deaths in Covid-19.
Some may say that, from the point of view of great statistics, this is negligible, but if we want to know exactly what the impact of the epidemic is, then, in my opinion, it is very important to have the most accurate numbers possible and to do it this way.https://www.postoj.sk/65044/mnohe-ob...le-od-alkoholu
As of November 9, we have 366 deaths with Covid-19 (on November 10, the number increased by 24, ed. Note). We also have 127 deaths with SARS-CoV-2 infection detected, but these patients did not have Covid-19 and we only report them as infected in the statistics. It can be seen from these numbers that this is a significant difference. So if we didn't do a detailed investigation, we would have had significantly more deaths in Covid-19.
Some may say that, from the point of view of great statistics, this is negligible, but if we want to know exactly what the impact of the epidemic is, then, in my opinion, it is very important to have the most accurate numbers possible and to do it this way.https://www.postoj.sk/65044/mnohe-ob...le-od-alkoholu
It is in connection with a heart attack that the number of victims of the disease has been relativized in the past. So if someone had a coronavirus infested lung but also had a heart attack, what would we die for, according to our classification?
If we have a patient who has a myocardial infarction, is hospitalized and treated for this disease, and dies of the symptoms of heart failure, he is routinely tested for coronavirus in the hospital and in our country at autopsy.
If the patient was tested positive, then, of course, in this case we examine the morphological changes in the airways and lungs in great detail. If no changes are found to support the diagnosis of advanced Covid-19, then the patient will only be included in the statistics as a death with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
However, if it was a recent heart attack, say one to two days, and the development of changes in the lungs related to Covid-19 clearly show that it was a week-long process, then the patient will be closed with Covid-19 and died to its consequences. Here we can talk about myocardial infarction as the immediate cause of death, but the underlying disease, the primary cause of death was Covid-19, which contributed significantly to the failure of the body.
If we have a patient who has a myocardial infarction, is hospitalized and treated for this disease, and dies of the symptoms of heart failure, he is routinely tested for coronavirus in the hospital and in our country at autopsy.
If the patient was tested positive, then, of course, in this case we examine the morphological changes in the airways and lungs in great detail. If no changes are found to support the diagnosis of advanced Covid-19, then the patient will only be included in the statistics as a death with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
However, if it was a recent heart attack, say one to two days, and the development of changes in the lungs related to Covid-19 clearly show that it was a week-long process, then the patient will be closed with Covid-19 and died to its consequences. Here we can talk about myocardial infarction as the immediate cause of death, but the underlying disease, the primary cause of death was Covid-19, which contributed significantly to the failure of the body.
With ALL 4 of these previous outbreaks, CDC and WHO agreed that a person with an initial positive PCR required 2 further things to be diagnosed as a case
i) a repeat confirmatory PCR test
AND
ii) clinical features of infection
That all changed with C19. A positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test = C19. No repeat test. No clinical features (as a large asymptomatic % is accepted as being part of the disease).
China however still requires a person to have a positive test (not clear if repeated) AND clinical features to be considered a case. They will still isolate and track positive PCR, but they are not cases.
Regarding the need for a confirmatory PCR test:
One study of positive SARS-CoV-2 samples tested the same sample a further 2 times (so each sample was tested 3 times). Note they didn't get another sample from the patient - they simply re-processed the sample a further 2 times.
55% of the time, the 2nd and/or the 3rd test were positive, and so the initial positive was considered a true positive
45% of the time, both the 2nd and 3rd test were negative, and so the initial positive was considered a false positive.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only adult flaunts rules every one else has to abide by!:
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian under fire over breach of NSW Health isolation rules after coronavirus test
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian under fire over breach of NSW Health isolation rules after coronavirus test
You know, Sweden made its mistakes by not adequately shielding the elderly in nursing homes. The Swedish authorities publicly acknowledged this and apologised for their errors.
In contrast, the witnesses before the Victorian hotel inquiry all did their best impersonation of Sgt Schultz.
In contrast, the witnesses before the Victorian hotel inquiry all did their best impersonation of Sgt Schultz.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the first Premier to not isolate after developing symptoms
https://www.news.com.au/national/que...df5b7dafa32c38
https://www.news.com.au/national/que...df5b7dafa32c38
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the first Premier to not isolate after developing symptoms
https://www.news.com.au/national/que...df5b7dafa32c38
https://www.news.com.au/national/que...df5b7dafa32c38
But who am I to judge, it turns out over 800 dead in Victoria due to DA and his Govt’s incompetence is not a big issue either to all the “believers”.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Most locked down city in the world
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to our CHC we cannot have them throwing up, and depositing nasty leper pathogens sludge in our sewage.
Therefore the border will remain closed until they can clean up their act. They will not be allowed to utilise our toilets and toilet paper.
I wish them well.
The very reliable and honourable M. McGowan