CV and mad panic behaviour

[flyboy77]

Ignoring what is happening in most places this is a hell of a tell. I'd say Singapore was "The Gold Standard" for Sars-CoV-2 preparedness, having learned the lessons of the original Sars. Then just a few weeks back they were all in with the UK in calling for borders to be opened up to save the economies, and now as you point out Singapore has flipped. I think it's a safe bet the UK might be back in the bleachers soon as well.

A lot of this is because they see the infected average age dropping very quickly, ICU's are no longer the preserve of +65 year olds or the chronically ill comorbidities, we are seeing otherwise healthy 20 or 30 somethings starting to fill beds.

Then there is the rising infection rate in the under 16 sector, which for the original strains was almost rarer than hens teeth, but is now becoming common place.

I am cynical though, because I suspect the aging bureaucrats and politicians no longer see themselves getting priority access to an ICU bed when they may be competing for slots with children and youths. So now they are "Ya'll better get a vaccine!"

The whole use of the term 'infection' is a con if you're basing it on positive PCR test results. Without clinical diagnosis.

Here in Victoria, with the fabulous BGI (B = Beijing) PCR test:

"Any result up to Ct of 40 is considered positive. Cycle thresholds of 40-45 are examined with further testing."

https://health.gov.au/sites/default/file...atform.pdf

NSW run their tests at up to 40 to 45x cycles.

The great Fauci says, in This Week in Virology this month:

“If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.”

Which is backed up by the science.

At a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% ; "at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture.

Other studies suggest a lower cycle threshold number is necessary for some level of validity:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/10/2663/5842165

SARS-CoV-2 Vero cell infectivity was only observed for RT-PCR Ct < 24 and STT < 8 days. Infectivity of patients with Ct > 24 and duration of symptoms > 8 days may be low. This information can inform public health policy and guide clinical...

Kary Mullis himself said 20x (which is 2 to the power of 20 remember) was the maximum that should be used.

Essentially 100% false positives at cycle threshold numbers of 35 or more.

https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/

Moreover, as the WHO states:

The cycle threshold needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT [Nucleic Acid Technology] technology.

And this is why the pollies get to muck around with our lives at their whim - off the back of an unfit for purpose test, never designed or meant for diagnostic purposes.