The test was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool to diagnose disease. It’s only purpose is to detect whether the virus is present in the body. For those suggesting that we throw out the PCR test, what then are you suggesting we use as an alternative? Do you want to go back to the days when doctors would just give their best guess (like they regularly do in diagnosing influenza or “influenza-like-illness” — without actually verifying that the virus was flu) ? When we tried that there was nothing but endless bitching that doctors were making stuff up without any actual verification.
So which way should it be? Use the “gold standard” PCR test to verify whether the virus is in the patient? Or just let doctors decide without a PCR test? Or something else? What exactly is the alternative recommendation?
So… if we abrogate personal responsibility, and allow our governments to make drastic interventions without either full information or cost/benefit analysis, then we can as societies all derive the benefits?
I can’t see any problems with that.. can you?
Re: Ivermectin, I totally agree. It’s an effective prophylactic and treatment that we could distribute at minimal cost *without any recourse to masks, lockdowns or semi-totalitarian compulsion.
Even better, those that didn’t want the proposed benefits of a long-standing treatment with known side-effects could opt out and take the consequences as they landed.
As opposed to compelling people to take action for benefit of others (not for themselves) off the back of minimally documented or tested science. Ie compel people to act prior to any scientifically-significant evidence.
So sure, your beliefs and mine don’t coincide. Be as antisocial as you wish, and I will feel free to refute as I see fit.
Lots of comments. Something is changing. I don’t know what or why.
By the way, I still only see one common factor for the covid 19 to be doing so much damage to the elderly, around the world yearly, repeat dose of “flue vaccines”.