Prominent scientists have bad news for the White House about

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 5:48:05 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:01:29 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 12:24:05 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

But the facts you've stated don't support that conclusion.

You are afraid and hysterical. That's silly for an adult.

How would you recognize hysteria in a logically true critical statement?

You might start by making such a statement, and we'll see.

John Larkin doesn't seem to be equipped to recognise logically true critical statements.

When they show up demonstrating that anthropogenic global warming is real, he ignores them, and unloads a steaming heap of meretricious rubbish he's got from some climate change denial propaganda site.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 19/04/2020 00:27, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-16 02:24, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com writes:

The specificity, complement of false positive, is what's killing
them. I also can't believe how weak the sensitivity is either.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html


Yep. As an example, condider a situation with 96/94
specificity/sensitivity, population tested of 1e6 with 5% having
antibodies (which does not necessarily mean immunity or not contagious)

Roughly:
  47000 get true positive result
   3000 get false negative
955200 get true negative
  39800 get false positive

So, 46% of positive results are false!

And those people may think they're safe for themselves and others, go
catch the virus and spread it during the asymptomatic phase.

--
mikko

Certainly a problem in the early stages of the outbreak.  Later on
though, 5% false positives for antibodies in a population that's 80%
immune is much less worrisome.

The inaccuracies approximately null out when the incidence of the
antibodies in the population gets into the 40-60% regime. Individuals
will still be told the wrong answer at the same rates but the overall
population number statistics will be about right.

Whether or not having antibodies to the original Covid-19 strain confers
lasting immunity against what it will become in a years time remains an
open question. There have already been instances of people apparently
catching it twice and testing as clear in between.

If having the antibodies confers immunity to later versions of the virus
that is in circulation then we should get something approximating herd
immunity at 60%. Unless there is a vaccine then that will require about
12 months of this high level of medical activity to keep people alive.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:31:54 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 19/04/2020 00:27, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-16 02:24, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com writes:

The specificity, complement of false positive, is what's killing
them. I also can't believe how weak the sensitivity is either.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html


Yep. As an example, condider a situation with 96/94
specificity/sensitivity, population tested of 1e6 with 5% having
antibodies (which does not necessarily mean immunity or not contagious)

Roughly:
  47000 get true positive result
   3000 get false negative
955200 get true negative
  39800 get false positive

So, 46% of positive results are false!

And those people may think they're safe for themselves and others, go
catch the virus and spread it during the asymptomatic phase.

--
mikko

Certainly a problem in the early stages of the outbreak.  Later on
though, 5% false positives for antibodies in a population that's 80%
immune is much less worrisome.

The inaccuracies approximately null out when the incidence of the
antibodies in the population gets into the 40-60% regime. Individuals
will still be told the wrong answer at the same rates but the overall
population number statistics will be about right.

Whether or not having antibodies to the original Covid-19 strain confers
lasting immunity against what it will become in a years time remains an
open question. There have already been instances of people apparently
catching it twice and testing as clear in between.

Has anyone caught it twice, as getting sick again after fully
recovering? Or did they just test positive after recovering?

If having the antibodies confers immunity to later versions of the virus
that is in circulation then we should get something approximating herd
immunity at 60%. Unless there is a vaccine then that will require about
12 months of this high level of medical activity to keep people alive.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 7:56:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:31:54 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Whether or not having antibodies to the original Covid-19 strain confers
lasting immunity against what it will become in a years time remains an
open question. There have already been instances of people apparently
catching it twice and testing as clear in between.

Has anyone caught it twice, as getting sick again after fully
recovering? Or did they just test positive after recovering?

How would anyone know that? Unless an initial infection is
a different genome than a subsequent one, how would you distinguish
a recover/reinfect cycle from a faulty test (false negative indicating
a recovery)?

Testing is of limited utility, there are a LOT of hard questions
that cannot yet be resolved. A liar can answer these questions
any way he/she wants, so beware if you hear clear answers without
any supporting data.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:36:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 7:56:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:31:54 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Whether or not having antibodies to the original Covid-19 strain confers
lasting immunity against what it will become in a years time remains an
open question. There have already been instances of people apparently
catching it twice and testing as clear in between.

Has anyone caught it twice, as getting sick again after fully
recovering? Or did they just test positive after recovering?

How would anyone know that?

1. Someone gets sick, verified as caused by C19

2. They get better and test negative for active infection

3. They are exposed to the same virus

4. They get sick from C19 again.

There is speculation and sometimes assumption in the press that this
will happen, that antibodies to this virus may not last, and that only
a vaccine can ever stop it. That implies herd immunity not being able
to stop this one, which would truly make it "novel." It also implies
that everyone will need to be vaccinated for C19 regularly forever. A
thousand-year pandemic.


But does 1-2-3-4 actually happen?


Unless an initial infection is

a different genome than a subsequent one, how would you distinguish
a recover/reinfect cycle from a faulty test (false negative indicating
a recovery)?

By a second actual illness, not just a test.

Testing is of limited utility, there are a LOT of hard questions
that cannot yet be resolved. A liar can answer these questions
any way he/she wants, so beware if you hear clear answers without
any supporting data.

There's enough noisy data available to support lots of theories. We
won't know much solid stuff for maybe 6 months or so.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:13:48 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:36:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 7:56:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:31:54 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Whether or not having antibodies to the original Covid-19 strain confers
lasting immunity against what it will become in a years time remains an
open question. There have already been instances of people apparently
catching it twice and testing as clear in between.

Has anyone caught it twice, as getting sick again after fully
recovering? Or did they just test positive after recovering?

How would anyone know that?


1. Someone gets sick, verified as caused by C19

2. They get better and test negative for active infection

3. They are exposed to the same virus

4. They get sick from C19 again.

But does 1-2-3-4 actually happen?

That was what this part of my post answered. The answer, is that
we cannot distinguish such a pheomenon in a single individual test cycle, only
a long history of cases will suffice.

Unless an initial infection is
a different genome than a subsequent one, how would you distinguish
a recover/reinfect cycle from a faulty test (false negative indicating
a recovery)?

By a second actual illness, not just a test.

Determination of a second actual illness, or a first actual illness IS EXACTLY
what is meant by "a test". Stop making distinctions where there is no difference,
and the situation will clarify.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:16:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:13:48 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:36:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 7:56:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:31:54 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Whether or not having antibodies to the original Covid-19 strain confers
lasting immunity against what it will become in a years time remains an
open question. There have already been instances of people apparently
catching it twice and testing as clear in between.

Has anyone caught it twice, as getting sick again after fully
recovering? Or did they just test positive after recovering?

How would anyone know that?


1. Someone gets sick, verified as caused by C19

2. They get better and test negative for active infection

3. They are exposed to the same virus

4. They get sick from C19 again.

But does 1-2-3-4 actually happen?

That was what this part of my post answered. The answer, is that
we cannot distinguish such a pheomenon in a single individual test cycle, only
a long history of cases will suffice.

Unless an initial infection is
a different genome than a subsequent one, how would you distinguish
a recover/reinfect cycle from a faulty test (false negative indicating
a recovery)?

By a second actual illness, not just a test.

Determination of a second actual illness, or a first actual illness IS EXACTLY
what is meant by "a test".

No! Lots of people have positive tests with no symptoms of illness.
Either their infection is asymptomatic, or the tests are wrong.

And lots of people get sick, presumably caused by this virus, without
ever being tested. Some recent nursing home reports assume that deaths
were caused by C19, without actually testing anyone for the virus.

Stop making distinctions where there is no difference,
and the situation will clarify.

The cases I am seeing in the press are noting a positive active virus
test as proof that antibodies are not protective. I don't know if
anyone has ever been sick, recovered, reinfected, and sick again.

The accounts in the press are often confused. They tend to not
distinguish between active virus and antibody tests, which doesn't
help.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 1:31:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The cases I am seeing in the press are noting a positive active virus
test as proof that antibodies are not protective. I don't know if
anyone has ever been sick, recovered, reinfected, and sick again.

For the third time, the 'positive active virus test' is not foolproof,
and one or three such indications from a test do not determine
the situation beyond reasonable doubt. The press does not publish
statistical reasoning, so you'll have to do the thinking yourself.

Start by examining the "anyone' word; one case is exactly what
a faulty test will look like, ONE case determines no truths.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:11:47 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 1:31:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The cases I am seeing in the press are noting a positive active virus
test as proof that antibodies are not protective. I don't know if
anyone has ever been sick, recovered, reinfected, and sick again.

For the third time, the 'positive active virus test' is not foolproof,
and one or three such indications from a test do not determine
the situation beyond reasonable doubt. The press does not publish
statistical reasoning, so you'll have to do the thinking yourself.

Start by examining the "anyone' word; one case is exactly what
a faulty test will look like, ONE case determines no truths.

But zero cases can.

The absence of a single double-infection case would be instructive of
whether the antibodies decay rapidly.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:20:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:11:47 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Start by examining the "anyone' word; one case is exactly what
a faulty test will look like, ONE case determines no truths.

But zero cases can.

The absence of a single double-infection case would be instructive of
whether the antibodies decay rapidly.

Great. So, all the people who get three tests, one during infection and the
second after remission, become part of your pool of data after getting
a third test; you're trying to detect an absence in the pool, and as the
count starts at zero, you've already detected it before you start.

But, why is that significant, before you start?

 

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:26:19 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:20:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:11:47 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Start by examining the "anyone' word; one case is exactly what
a faulty test will look like, ONE case determines no truths.

But zero cases can.

The absence of a single double-infection case would be instructive of
whether the antibodies decay rapidly.

Great. So, all the people who get three tests, one during infection and the
second after remission, become part of your pool of data after getting
a third test; you're trying to detect an absence in the pool, and as the
count starts at zero, you've already detected it before you start.

But, why is that significant, before you start?

The question is whether getting a C19 infection confers long-term
immunity. It certainly confers short-term immunity, or no-one would
ever recover.

That's important, and we should find out.

Cases of re-infection would be good to know about. Most people see the
same doctor and go to the same hospital when they get sick, so there
should be lots of data.






--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:00:59 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

How do you get to be a Top Scientist? Is there a game show for that?

You bribe CNN?

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:50:59 -0700, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:00:59 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

How do you get to be a Top Scientist? Is there a game show for that?


You bribe CNN?

Not necessary. Just become a strident climate-alarmist and you'll get all
the air time you want on the satellite news channels.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 9:39:21 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:50:59 -0700, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:00:59 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

How do you get to be a Top Scientist? Is there a game show for that?

You bribe CNN?

Not necessary. Just become a strident climate-alarmist and you'll get all
the air time you want on the satellite news channels.

It helps if you become a well-respected climate scientist first.

A PNAS study showed that 97% of the top 300 climate scientist accepted that anthropogenic global warming was real. This makes them climate-alarmists in Cursitor Doom's bizarre world.

I thought that I could work out who perhaps six of the ten hold-outs were, and none of them had rational reasons for rejecting the concensus, and most had got quite a bit of money from the Heartlands Foundation for featuring at climate change denials propaganda events.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney