On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:38:50 +0100, devnull wrote:

On 7/14/20 11:19 AM, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 01:52:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:07:05 -0000 (UTC), Smolley wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 21:20:54 +0100, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) wrote:

Go on don't hold back tell us what you really think.
Actually. Look up the company Elle on line and get five for 15 quid.

Brian
I bought a scuba full face mask and put ten old (clean) socks over the
pipe end.
My wife bought a box of face shields for me. If nothing else I can use
them in the shop. They go on like a pair of glasses. It should get me
past the door dweeb at Costco since they wear face shields.
I guess the people who wear masks do so for all kinds of reasons, even
stupid reasons like trying to get past the door dweeb at Costco.


Yah, my immune system will take care of the Wuhan-19 so don't need a mask.

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

We should just allow 20% of the world to die off, the people remaining will be the healthy ones.

I just put one on long enough to get by the mask nazi at the entrance. Never seen any mask nazis in the aisles.

There are mask Nazis in Scotland, two uniformed police at one supermarket! And yet do you know what the death toll is here now? 1 a week!!! A week! So no need to be safe at all.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:38:50 +0100, devnull wrote:

On 7/14/20 11:19 AM, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 01:52:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:07:05 -0000 (UTC), Smolley wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 21:20:54 +0100, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) wrote:

Go on don't hold back tell us what you really think.
Actually. Look up the company Elle on line and get five for 15
quid.

Brian
I bought a scuba full face mask and put ten old (clean) socks over the
pipe end.
My wife bought a box of face shields for me. If nothing else I can use
them in the shop. They go on like a pair of glasses. It should get me
past the door dweeb at Costco since they wear face shields.
I guess the people who wear masks do so for all kinds of reasons, even
stupid reasons like trying to get past the door dweeb at Costco.


Yah, my immune system will take care of the Wuhan-19 so don't need a
mask.

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

We should just allow 20% of the world to die off, the people remaining
will be the healthy ones.

More bull****. In fact with the spanish flu it was the healthy ones who got
killed.

I just put one on long enough to get by the mask nazi at the entrance.
Never seen any mask nazis in the aisles.

There are mask Nazis in Scotland, two uniformed police at one supermarket!
And yet do you know what the death toll is here now? 1 a week!!! A week!
So no need to be safe at all.

"%%" wrote in message ...


"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

/quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


michael adams

....

On 2020-07-23 11:24 a.m., %% wrote:


"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:38:50 +0100, devnull wrote:

On 7/14/20 11:19 AM, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 01:52:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:07:05 -0000 (UTC), Smolley wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 21:20:54 +0100, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) wrote:

Go on don't hold back tell us what you really think.
* Actually. Look up the company Elle on line and get five for 15
quid.

Brian
I bought a scuba full face mask and put ten old (clean) socks over
the
pipe end.
My wife bought a box of face shields for me. If nothing else I can use
them in the shop. They go on like a pair of glasses. It should get me
past the door dweeb at Costco since they wear face shields.
I guess the people who wear masks do so for all kinds of reasons, even
stupid reasons like trying to get past the door dweeb at Costco.


Yah, my immune system will take care of the Wuhan-19 so don't need a
mask.

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

We should just allow 20% of the world to die off, the people remaining
will be the healthy ones.

More bull****. In fact with the spanish flu it was the healthy ones who
got killed.

like name copiers

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 04:24:21 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"%%" wrote in message
...


"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

Still bull****.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

Pity about what happens after the day of the test.

/quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"%%" wrote in message ...


"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

Still bull****.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

Pity about what happens after the day of the test.

Same as the days before the test; the asymptomatic postives may infect
other people. People who *may* then themselves get symptoms.
Whether the testees later go on to develop symptoms themselves
is rather beside the point.

Which is why as Captain Kinsey pointed out its important for people
to realise that just because they don't have any symptoms themselves
an any particular day they well may be carriers. 78% of them in fact.

Your efforts at rubbishing such statistics are highly irresponsible
to say the very least !


/quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155



michael adams

....

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:52:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

05:52??? LOL And you've been up and trolling for TWO AND A HALF HOURS, yet
again! You sociopathic swine REALLY know no shame!

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"%%" wrote in message
...


"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

Still bull****.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

Pity about what happens after the day of the test.

Same as the days before the test; the asymptomatic postives may infect
other people. People who *may* then themselves get symptoms. Whether the
testees later go on to develop symptoms themselves is rather beside the
point.

Like hell it is with the stupid claim he made.

Which is why as Captain Kinsey pointed out its important for people
to realise that just because they don't have any symptoms themselves
an any particular day they well may be carriers. 78% of them in fact.

It isnt 78% of them on other than the day of the test.

Your efforts at rubbishing such statistics

I rubbished nothing, I pointed out that its only true of the day of the
test.

are highly irresponsible to say the very least !

You are a ****wit.


/quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:25:13 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"%%" wrote in message ...


"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

Still bull****.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

Pity about what happens after the day of the test.

Same as the days before the test; the asymptomatic postives may infect other people.
People who *may* then themselves get symptoms. Whether the testees later go on to
develop symptoms themselves is rather beside the point.

Like hell it is with the stupid claim he made.

Which is why as Captain Kinsey pointed out its important for people
to realise that just because they don't have any symptoms themselves
an any particular day they well may be carriers. 78% of them in fact.

It isnt 78% of them on other than the day of the test.

But it will be 78% of the new batch of people they test on the next day.

Assuming the test samples are representative of the population
as a whole then on any one day, 78% of people walking about
who are potential carriers, won't be showing any symptoms.
And won't have been aware of the fact until they'd been
tested



Your efforts at rubbishing such statistics

I rubbished nothing, I pointed out that its only true of the day of the test.

But its true of the next day - another 78% sympotmless positives, and the day
after that another 78% symptomless positives. All wandering about infecting
people *before* they were even tested. That's an awful lot of symptomless
carriers to have wandering about. And those are only the ones who *have*
been tested. That's the point.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"%%" wrote in message
...


"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0n7y800dwdg98l@glass...

80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

Still bull****.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

Pity about what happens after the day of the test.

Same as the days before the test; the asymptomatic postives may infect
other people. People who *may* then themselves get symptoms. Whether the
testees later go on to develop symptoms themselves is rather beside the
point.

Like hell it is with the stupid claim he made.

Which is why as Captain Kinsey pointed out its important for people
to realise that just because they don't have any symptoms themselves
an any particular day they well may be carriers. 78% of them in fact.

It isnt 78% of them on other than the day of the test.

But it will be 78% of the new batch of people they test on the next day.

That’s only a tiny subset of the total infected, stupid.

Assuming the test samples are representative of the population
as a whole then on any one day, 78% of people walking about
who are potential carriers, won't be showing any symptoms.

That’s bull**** with the total number who are walking around, ****wit.

And won't have been aware of the fact until they'd been tested

But will be aware that they have it when they get symptoms.

Your efforts at rubbishing such statistics

I rubbished nothing, I pointed out that its only true of the day of the
test.

But its true of the next day - another 78% sympotmless positives, and the
day after that another 78% symptomless positives.

That’s only a tiny subset of the total infected, stupid.

All wandering about

Not necessarily.

infecting people

Not necessarily.

*before* they were even tested. That's an awful lot of symptomless
carriers to have wandering about.

Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.

And those are only the ones who *have* been tested. That's the point.

Bull**** it is.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:05:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become apparent.

It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...


quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.


The above link stated that 78% of those tested had *no* symptoms.
That's the whole point !

The only way that percentage could be unrepresentative of the
population as a whole would be if they deliberately selected
people for testing who were sufficiently recovered from Covid
19 to no longer be showing symptoms but still carrying
antibodies. In which case they would previously have tested
positive for Coronavirus. Had that been the case then that
would doubtless have been pointed out.

As it is

5.Antibody data

quote

Around 6.3% of people who provided blood samples tested positive
for antibodies to COVID-19

quote
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...uring-the-data

I haven't read the link sufficiently to know how representative
that particular sample is.

However two previous studies, one of blood donors, gave a figure of around
3%

So that's 78% of 3-6% of the population who are, at least were
during the period those figures covered, asymptomatic carriers prior to
being tested


michael adams

....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any symptoms
at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as why
all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling these
apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?


michael adams

....

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:02:56 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become apparent.

It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

To **** with responsible. That's no way to enjoy life.

Thought everyone knew this.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
80% of people who get it don't even have any symptoms.

Bull****.

78% actually. Of those tested, at least.

quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any symptoms
at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as why
all this money is being wasted on testing people,

It isnt wasted when the infected are isolated so they don’t infect others.

and compiling these apparently useless statistics.

Nothing useless about the stat that so many can
be infected and without symptoms in initially.

Does it not ?

Nope, dope.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...


quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.


The above link stated that 78% of those tested had *no* symptoms.

But that’s not all tests, stupid.

That's the whole point !

Nope, dope.

The only way that percentage could be unrepresentative of the
population as a whole would be if they deliberately selected
people for testing who were sufficiently recovered from Covid
19 to no longer be showing symptoms but still carrying
antibodies. In which case they would previously have tested
positive for Coronavirus.

Not if they hadn't been tested previously.

Had that been the case then that would doubtless have been pointed out.

Or do that accidentally.

As it is

5.Antibody data

quote

Around 6.3% of people who provided blood samples tested positive
for antibodies to COVID-19

That number is useless given that there is more than
one antibody test and a variety of times since infected.

quote
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...uring-the-data

I haven't read the link sufficiently to know how representative
that particular sample is.

Useless in fact.

However two previous studies, one of blood donors, gave a figure of around
3%

So that's 78% of 3-6% of the population who are, at least were
during the period those figures covered, asymptomatic carriers prior to
being tested

Utterly mangled all over again. They arent the same sample, stupid.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 06:16:40 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

06:16, you sick senile asshole? So you've been up and trolling for EXACTLY
FOUR HOURS already, you subnormal senile sick idiot!

On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 06:22:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become
apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any
symptoms at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as
why all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling
these apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?

Absolutely not. If a test shows someone has the virus they should take
steps to avoid passing it on to others. Especially if they work etc with
the vulnerable.

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become
apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any
symptoms at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as
why all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling
these apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?

Absolutely not. If a test shows someone has the virus they should take
steps to avoid passing it on to others.

But according to you above, "everyone already knew this". That they
could be infectious before they have the symptoms; and so they should
*already* be taking steps to avoid passing it on to others. So what's the
point of testing them ?


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...


quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.


The above link stated that 78% of those tested had *no* symptoms.

But that’s not all tests, stupid.

Maybe not Rodney. Maybe they *mainly* test psople who are *already*
showing symptoms. Which if categorised accordingly, would tell them
how many of *those* people who do have symptoms, are carrying the
antibodies.

This set of results was however different. These subjects were
tseted regardless of whether or not they were reporting symptoms.
And of the ones who tested positive, 78% of them weren't
showing any any symptoms at all. All of whom would been missed
completely by the kind of tests you were referring to, aimed
solely at people who were already showing symptoms.

Maybe if you showed this to somebody else, they mighty be
able to explain this point to you.


michael adams

....

On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:56:04 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become
apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any
symptoms at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as
why all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling
these apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?

Absolutely not. If a test shows someone has the virus they should take
steps to avoid passing it on to others.

But according to you above, "everyone already knew this". That they
could be infectious before they have the symptoms; and so they should
*already* be taking steps to avoid passing it on to others. So what's the
point of testing them ?

There's no point in any of it. Most of us are already immune.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0odr1pxnwdg98l@glass...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:56:04 +0100, michael adams
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become
apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any
symptoms at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have
the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if
socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as
why all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling
these apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?

Absolutely not. If a test shows someone has the virus they should take
steps to avoid passing it on to others.

But according to you above, "everyone already knew this". That they
could be infectious before they have the symptoms; and so they should
*already* be taking steps to avoid passing it on to others. So what's the
point of testing them ?

There's no point in any of it. Most of us are already immune.

Must be why so many are becoming infected daily.

Wota terminal ****wit you have always been.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:54:55 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather


--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...


quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported
having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.


The above link stated that 78% of those tested had *no* symptoms.

But that’s not all tests, stupid.

Maybe not Rodney. Maybe they *mainly* test psople who are *already*
showing symptoms. Which if categorised accordingly, would tell them
how many of *those* people who do have symptoms, are carrying the
antibodies.

This set of results was however different. These subjects were
tseted regardless of whether or not they were reporting symptoms.
And of the ones who tested positive, 78% of them weren't
showing any any symptoms at all. All of whom would been missed
completely by the kind of tests you were referring to, aimed
solely at people who were already showing symptoms.

But its very far from clear how typical that sample
was. let alone how reliable that particular test was
given that no one else has ever got anything like
that result when testing everyone.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become
apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any
symptoms at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as
why all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling
these apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?

Absolutely not. If a test shows someone has the virus they should take
steps to avoid passing it on to others.

But according to you above, "everyone already knew this". That they could
be infectious before they have the symptoms;

Yes.

and so they should *already* be taking steps to avoid passing it on to
others.

And that’s why everyone has to wear masks in shops etc now, stupid.

So what's the point of testing them ?

So they can be forced to isolate until they are no longer positive, stupid.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:05:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:08:12 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become
apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any
symptoms at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as
why all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling
these apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?

Absolutely not. If a test shows someone has the virus they should take
steps to avoid passing it on to others.

But according to you above, "everyone already knew this". That they could be
infectious before they have the symptoms;

Yes.

and so they should *already* be taking steps to avoid passing it on to others.

And that’s why everyone has to wear masks in shops etc now, stupid.

They're wearing masks in shops now, dopey, because the Govt has told them to.
For many of them, that's the only reason. With the possibility of a
£200 fine if they don't.

Not because "everybody already knows" that quite possibly 78% of carriers
don't show any symptoms


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...


quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.


The above link stated that 78% of those tested had *no* symptoms.

But that’s not all tests, stupid.

Maybe not Rodney. Maybe they *mainly* test psople who are *already*
showing symptoms. Which if categorised accordingly, would tell them
how many of *those* people who do have symptoms, are carrying the
antibodies.

This set of results was however different. These subjects were
tseted regardless of whether or not they were reporting symptoms.
And of the ones who tested positive, 78% of them weren't
showing any any symptoms at all. All of whom would been missed
completely by the kind of tests you were referring to, aimed
solely at people who were already showing symptoms.

But its very far from clear how typical that sample
was. let alone how reliable that particular test was
given that no one else has ever got anything like
that result when testing everyone.

So what result did they get ?

That is, the percentage of people carrying antibodies who were not showing
any symptoms.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

It's not unusual to have a virus etc before any symptoms become
apparent.

It may also be not unusual to have a virus etc and never show any
symptoms at all. Allegedly


It's how they spread so easily. You are infectious before you have
the
symptoms that might keep you at home, or away from others, if
socially
responsible.

Thought everyone knew this.

But if everyone already knows this, then it does raise the question as
why all this money is being wasted on testing people, and compiling
these apparently useless statistics. Does it not ?

Absolutely not. If a test shows someone has the virus they should take
steps to avoid passing it on to others.

But according to you above, "everyone already knew this". That they
could be
infectious before they have the symptoms;

Yes.

and so they should *already* be taking steps to avoid passing it on to
others.

And that’s why everyone has to wear masks in shops etc now, stupid.

They're wearing masks in shops now, dopey, because the Govt has told them
to.

There is a reason the govt told them to do that, ****wit.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...


quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported
having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.


The above link stated that 78% of those tested had *no* symptoms.

But that’s not all tests, stupid.

Maybe not Rodney. Maybe they *mainly* test psople who are *already*
showing symptoms. Which if categorised accordingly, would tell them
how many of *those* people who do have symptoms, are carrying the
antibodies.

This set of results was however different. These subjects were
tseted regardless of whether or not they were reporting symptoms.
And of the ones who tested positive, 78% of them weren't
showing any any symptoms at all. All of whom would been missed
completely by the kind of tests you were referring to, aimed
solely at people who were already showing symptoms.

But its very far from clear how typical that sample
was. let alone how reliable that particular test was
given that no one else has ever got anything like
that result when testing everyone.

So what result did they get ?

Nothing even remotely like that, not even in Stockholm.
Stockholm didn’t even get double digit positives.

That is, the percentage of people carrying antibodies who were not showing
any symptoms.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 19:48:35 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

What are you now quarrelling about again, senile asshole? BG

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 19:46:37 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: