Category Archives: Science
In my last post I finished off by speculating whether the ambitions of technocrats like Klaus Schwab for a new world order, dangerously near to fulfilment because of the apathy of the majority, might in part be based on the materialist worldview which regards free-will as an illusion.
It seems to me that the biggest question in this lockdown business is this: are governments like the UK’s conservative government under Boris Johnson freedom-lovers constrained by a pandemic to impose temporary restrictions on many of our God-given liberties, or are they (for one reason or another) intent on centralising power in the longer term? This question seems to be the thing that differentiates the “mainstream” from “the dissenters.”
Regular readers will know how interested I’ve become over the years in the way that our society gets to adopt general assumptions that are plain wrong, and how these are inculcated by propaganda of one sort or another.
During the Black Death [t]he people of the Mediaeval Ages were uneducated about diseases and cleanliness. Many thought it was caught through the air, so they would burn incense like juniper and rosemary to try to prevent infected air. People would dunk their handkerchiefs in aromatic oils to cover their nose and mouth from the air. But now there is Test and Trace.
At the level of public discussion, the question of vaccine passports for internal use has been a roller-coaster of rumours and about-turns, not only in the UK but across the world. Their necessity was trumpeted almost as early as the first COVID cases, and their similarity to (and potential evolution into) Internal Passports in the Soviet tradition was soon noted by opponents.
I, and others, have long been pointing out that, quite apart from the intrinsic specificity (false positive) rate of the PCR tests it has been very difficult to get hold of details on how many amplification cycles are being used in real life. The original British standard was 45 cycles (to be “on the safe side” over the WHO’s recommended 40 back last year).
OK, I refer you to another excellent post by John Dee entitled False Positive Refresher. In it he talks about the PCR test’s sensitivity (which is the nominal percentage of true cases it spots). A sensitivity of 80% means that if you test 100 sick people, it will miss 20 of them. More importantly, in this context, is the specificity (which is the nominal percentage of genuine negatives it spots). So a specificity of 99% means that if you do the test in 100 well people, it labels one as sick, ie as a false positive.
This is an update of things I wrote last summer to remind folks of how a high rate of false positive COVID tests falsifies all the statistics, and not just the case numbers. It’s relevant because SAGE and others are making dire forecasts about the dire effects of repealing our now sketchily-observed restrictions.
The ongoing public manipulation over COVID-19->∞ goes on unabated. Depending what news article you happen to click on, you can find a different minister or SAGE member assuring us that all restrictions will go on the delayed Freedom Day in a fortnight’s time, or else that “freedom” will mean more or less the same as now only without the Furlough Scheme. And all points in between. Reports of lucrative new Test and Trace contracts for 2022 rather contradict the “free at last” narrative, as does today’s BMA announcement that: “…keeping some protective measures in place is ‘crucial’ to stop spiralling case numbers having a ‘devastating impact’ on people’s health.”
Here’s an interesting graph, which is discussed in this article.