Dr. Paul Alexander pointed his subscribers to an incredibly interesting data set featuring data from over 5000 of 7000 Walgreens testing locations. I wanted to take some time to share my take on it because the data shows why I was wrong about test negative designs being used to justify vaccinations even long after the vaccines became useless. At the time, I figured that hysterics among vaccine enthusiasts would cause them to test far more frequently than the unvaccinated even without symptoms or for unrelated illnesses. The idea was, simply put, that frequent testing would outpace positive tests and the unvaccinated would test less frequently, but with more understanding of their symptoms.
I have assumed that unvaxxed like me don't bother with the test because a few days of sneezing wasn't that bad. Have I had covid? No idea, never tested. I have some in the garage my work gave me. When we get to the stepping over bodies in the street phase then maybe I'll test.
Walgreens' hand-waving reminds me of the UK's NHS/HSA reports before they stopped publishing good data. "Here's the data, but you shouldn't interpret it to mean what it shows!"
I agree with Potatoehead here, had some sniffles myself a couple of times but did not test (the test itself seems far from safe and far from accurate ). Several friends told me the same. What I conclude from the article's graphs, is that Walgreens is straight out lying. Well we are by now used to that right?
Did an anti-body blood test last year to see if I have anti-bodies for Covid (any variant then current). Nope. As to the validity of the test or how accurate it is, the nurse doing became quite inflamed that I would even ask - "If you don't trust that we do our best, why are you here?" kind of attitude.
Repeating the question and pointing out that I'm simply curious and that knowing about accurace et c. for a test I've just taken is kind of important, and that I paid the eq. of $70 for the test in the first place was like talking biology with a feminist.
On the other hand, I only meet other people when going to a town to stock up, so my rate of potential exposure is quite low.
Should be a nice challenge for a stat-head tha, factor in population density vis-a-vis risk of exposure and risk of infection. Most people here in the countryside live active physically tasking outdoors kind of lives, no matter their age. A relative who is on the far side of 85 still cuts his own timber and splits it into firewood. That's rather impressive considering that he have to heft pieces of the bole weighing som 30 kilos onto the chopping stump, and cleave them manually.
Now show me an inner city latte-mocha-frappo-crappo-chini sipping simp of an IT-techie hipster doing that. Should be a good freak show, going by what I see when such people visit their relatives out in the deep dark forests.
“Furthermore, repeat testing among those who were previously positive in the last 90 days appear to confound the results.” Now that’s interesting. If the vaccinated are symptomatic and testing positive twice in the space of 90 days at higher rates than the unvaccinated, it could be evidence of Original Antigenic Sin, which El Gato Malo and others have been warning about. In short, the vaccines leave you with an inadequate immune response, leading you to be reinfected more easily.
Oh my ...sorry a bit off-topic but not. Just when my family was being treated in a slightly humane way, Fisman has come out with this doozy: And he is getting all kinds of MSM traction with his "modelling," including in G and M.
I have assumed that unvaxxed like me don't bother with the test because a few days of sneezing wasn't that bad. Have I had covid? No idea, never tested. I have some in the garage my work gave me. When we get to the stepping over bodies in the street phase then maybe I'll test.
Walgreens' hand-waving reminds me of the UK's NHS/HSA reports before they stopped publishing good data. "Here's the data, but you shouldn't interpret it to mean what it shows!"
Yeah, sure.
Well... 2 years after this so called pandemic virus 🦠 I haven’t got tested + I don’t trust them & I don’t trust the safe and effective shots. 🩸
I agree with Potatoehead here, had some sniffles myself a couple of times but did not test (the test itself seems far from safe and far from accurate ). Several friends told me the same. What I conclude from the article's graphs, is that Walgreens is straight out lying. Well we are by now used to that right?
They write: "Controlling for additional factors leads to a larger difference between groups.”
But they don't say which group looks better after "[c]ontrolling for additional factors". The previous sentence's implication may be a lawyerly ruse.
Did an anti-body blood test last year to see if I have anti-bodies for Covid (any variant then current). Nope. As to the validity of the test or how accurate it is, the nurse doing became quite inflamed that I would even ask - "If you don't trust that we do our best, why are you here?" kind of attitude.
Repeating the question and pointing out that I'm simply curious and that knowing about accurace et c. for a test I've just taken is kind of important, and that I paid the eq. of $70 for the test in the first place was like talking biology with a feminist.
On the other hand, I only meet other people when going to a town to stock up, so my rate of potential exposure is quite low.
Should be a nice challenge for a stat-head tha, factor in population density vis-a-vis risk of exposure and risk of infection. Most people here in the countryside live active physically tasking outdoors kind of lives, no matter their age. A relative who is on the far side of 85 still cuts his own timber and splits it into firewood. That's rather impressive considering that he have to heft pieces of the bole weighing som 30 kilos onto the chopping stump, and cleave them manually.
Now show me an inner city latte-mocha-frappo-crappo-chini sipping simp of an IT-techie hipster doing that. Should be a good freak show, going by what I see when such people visit their relatives out in the deep dark forests.
Topic, what topic? I'm ranting over here!
“Furthermore, repeat testing among those who were previously positive in the last 90 days appear to confound the results.” Now that’s interesting. If the vaccinated are symptomatic and testing positive twice in the space of 90 days at higher rates than the unvaccinated, it could be evidence of Original Antigenic Sin, which El Gato Malo and others have been warning about. In short, the vaccines leave you with an inadequate immune response, leading you to be reinfected more easily.
Inevitably they are. All pharma institutions and their employees are captured and captivated respectively by the COVID mania.
Oh my ...sorry a bit off-topic but not. Just when my family was being treated in a slightly humane way, Fisman has come out with this doozy: And he is getting all kinds of MSM traction with his "modelling," including in G and M.
https://www.cp24.com/news/mixing-with-unvaccinated-increases-covid-19-risk-for-vaccinated-people-study-finds-1.5874637