Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "1st August, Increasing coronavirus cases and prevention in the UK" video.

  1. No, the PCR test is specific for Covid-19. It has very very low false positive rates. It can absolutely distinguish between other viruses and bacteria. . If not, cite the study and I'll take a look.
    2
  2.  @homesteadingintheheartland8106  I don't know what that link is. I clicked and it wants me to download something. . I thought it was the CDC page that said something? Can link that directly? I don't want a computer virus lol.
    2
  3.  @homesteadingintheheartland8106  Thanks, I don't mean to be difficult! . I'll check it out.
    2
  4.  @homesteadingintheheartland8106  Well I agree so much on that -- back to nature is the way, no matter what the case with viruses and technology! . In fact I'mma go check my carrots! Farming I am discovering is a never ending discovery. Aloha amigo!
    2
  5. My guess is that it did that in 2019, and may do more. . The mortality rate is probably at least 10x less than the usual guesses from the haphazard testing numbers.
    2
  6. eye protection gives ~10% risk reduction, masks ~14%, and keeping 1m away from people 10%. . glasses or goggles, it did not specify. . I wear glasses when I go into a store.
    2
  7.  EmtronVenger  All cities have pipes next to each other in the ground. It's good to filter at the tap.
    2
  8. no there aren't
    1
  9.  @warmachineuk  mere static on the radar
    1
  10.  @Otisbear480  There's not really much actual, scientific data reported. . Only numbers from randomized surveys are appropriate for estimating prevalence. Doing that from testing numbers is not proper.
    1
  11.  @homesteadingintheheartland8106  No it is not. The PCR test looks for a specific sequence unique to this virus. . It does not pick up bacteria, sorry but that is as likely as Burger King serving car parts for breakfast.
    1
  12.  @homesteadingintheheartland8106  Ok it worked! Found a nice easy to read document from that search suggestion: https://www.thecompleteguidetohealth.com/uploads/8/9/4/8/8948721/cdc.pdf . It says" This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens." (p37, top) . That means that if Joe tests positive for Covid, he might have other things also. . It goes on to say "In summary, the 2019-nCoV rRT-PCR assay N1 and N2, designed for the specific detection of 2019-nCoV, showed no significant combined homologies with human genome, other coronaviruses, or human microflora that would predict potential false positive rRT-PCR results." (p 40, bottom). . This means that the CDC thinks there are ZERO viruses or bacteria that will give false positives. (There could be false positives from lab errors, of course).
    1
  13. That question can't be answered. Case numbers are not a scientifically collected type of data. They do not indicate rise or falls of actual numbers of infections. Dr. Campbell shouldn't use them for that. . Only the studies that use representative samples are capable of estimating actual infection numbers. Thankfully the UK does have a random sampling program. Unfortunately it seems to be sporadic, rather than daily or weekly.
    1
  14. That's because we are making the mistake of watching news, which uses misery to sell us objects and services.
    1
  15.  @kevinomalley1521  Masks reduce risk ~14%. Is that a bit, or a lot? idk but it's 14% better than 0%. . When the % protections drive R below 1, then outbreaks will go away instead of grow. When we can add the % from masks, immunity, vaccinations, etc. to get to 60-70%, then that should be enough to get R below 1.
    1
  16. I agree, rapid in-home tests would make a huge difference. . That, and random invitation testing, like the UK is doing at some level, but I don't see in the US or most other countries.
    1
  17. Our cities are not burning. Hyperbole is the worst thing ever invented.
    1
  18.  @curve5746  if you got your card lol it's "Norad"
    1