You mean Peter Thornley, a staged act in a staged sport that makes millions from gullible Americans?

They are not comparable, in any shape, sense or form. You'll be saying 'intestinal fortitude' next Mr McMahon! and telling us that Stacey is really your daughter!

And i know you were joking, if it wasn't for all the blumin adverts on here I wouldn't need to keep editing.

Quote: Mild Rover "You want us to compare a % value per 10,000 population (which is itself a nonsense) for positive tests with a value per 100,000 for hospitalizations? That's taking apples an oranges to an extreme. If you're talking about a PCR test detecting specific 'dead organic material' (it's debatable whether viruses are a form of life, anyway) that isn't a false positive. It's how the test works. A false positive would be if you got a signal from your negative control, in which case the test has failed and would be rejected. Based solely on your set up, it is impossible to tell. That sentence is 108 words, by the way, and pretty much impenetrable. Now, I've read a couple Gabriel Garcia Marquez novels. I'm not frightened of long sentences, but I can't p that bugger. The genome of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been sequenced. There's been a big effort to get all published scientific material on the virus and disease available freely online. I said a comparison % of test positives for covid v influenza at same time of year this year for C.19 and last year for influenza, bother to read correctly. 0.55% of all covid tests are + v 0.81% positive test rate for all flu tests. It's precisely the same comparison! No gold standard ever established, the PCR test itself is the standard which is utter bunk! You also get false positives because dead organic cells are dead, ergo cannot have any bearing on infection, WHO admit this is a massive flaw, yet still triggers a positive with the PCR test, it's not rocket science. here, go educate yourself https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/cov ... aningless/ https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04 ... stic-test/ There's evidence that the markers of COVID exist in all human DNA Basing your response on character/word length in a sentence is about all you've got isn't it The facts bear out that the risk is significantly less than for influenza in August last year (which is already very small) in terms of tests despite the mass testing by the millions, the number of deaths WITH a non isolated virus using a flawed test are dwarfed by other respiratory disease deaths were the persons have died FROM - as in underlying cause of death (the only way to accurately code a death on the register), the risk is tiny. Excess deaths fell because people began to actually see to their vulnerable relatives, those already left to rot, left to DNR, died of their underlying health conditions (as per Neil ferguson's own words back in March), the excess deaths flattened. people were not dying of C.19 in the first instance. If you remove healthcare in hospitals, remove staff from critical care wards by the thousands to man Covid wards (A government edict produced in an NHS document stating precisely that), remove care in care homes and in the wider community, making people fearful to even seek emergency care, stop essential procedures (my stepdaughters friend is now going to die because her cancer treatments were stopped) then you get a lot of people dying from their underlying conditions. Testing positive post death with that flawed test, or no test at all, or attributing C.19 instead of pneumonia (again another gov edict to change how death certificates were filed in) is yet more bunk in terms of fudging the death toll and making out that most of the deaths were FROM C.19 when they simply weren't. There are massively fewer people to die, even ONS state that the levelling off is due to the fact that people dying prematurely with their underlying health condition means a drop in deaths! Wake up for gods sakes

Quote: Mild Rover "You want us to compare a % value per 10,000 population (which is itself a nonsense) for positive tests with a value per 100,000 for hospitalizations? That's taking apples an oranges to an extreme. If you're talking about a PCR test detecting specific 'dead organic material' (it's debatable whether viruses are a form of life, anyway) that isn't a false positive. It's how the test works. A false positive would be if you got a signal from your negative control, in which case the test has failed and would be rejected. Based solely on your set up, it is impossible to tell. That sentence is 108 words, by the way, and pretty much impenetrable. Now, I've read a couple Gabriel Garcia Marquez novels. I'm not frightened of long sentences, but I can't p that bugger. The genome of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been sequenced. There's been a big effort to get all published scientific material on the virus and disease available freely online. I said a comparison % of test positives for covid v influenza at same time of year this year for C.19 and last year for influenza, bother to read correctly. 0.55% of all covid tests are + v 0.81% positive test rate for all flu tests. It's precisely the same comparison! No gold standard ever established, the PCR test itself is the standard which is utter bunk! You also get false positives because dead organic cells are dead, ergo cannot have any bearing on infection, WHO admit this is a massive flaw, yet still triggers a positive with the PCR test, it's not rocket science. here, go educate yourself https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/cov ... aningless/ https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04 ... stic-test/ There's evidence that the markers of COVID exist in all human DNA Basing your response on character/word length in a sentence is about all you've got isn't it The facts bear out that the risk is significantly less than for influenza in August last year (which is already very small) in terms of tests despite the mass testing by the millions, the number of deaths WITH a non isolated virus using a flawed test are dwarfed by other respiratory disease deaths were the persons have died FROM - as in underlying cause of death (the only way to accurately code a death on the register), the risk is tiny. Excess deaths fell because people began to actually see to their vulnerable relatives, those already left to rot, left to DNR, died of their underlying health conditions (as per Neil ferguson's own words back in March), the excess deaths flattened. people were not dying of C.19 in the first instance. If you remove healthcare in hospitals, remove staff from critical care wards by the thousands to man Covid wards (A government edict produced in an NHS document stating precisely that), remove care in care homes and in the wider community, making people fearful to even seek emergency care, stop essential procedures (my stepdaughters friend is now going to die because her cancer treatments were stopped) then you get a lot of people dying from their underlying conditions. Testing positive post death with that flawed test, or no test at all, or attributing C.19 instead of pneumonia (again another gov edict to change how death certificates were filed in) is yet more bunk in terms of fudging the death toll and making out that most of the deaths were FROM C.19 when they simply weren't. There are massively fewer people to die, even ONS state that the levelling off is due to the fact that people dying prematurely with their underlying health condition means a drop in deaths! Wake up for gods sakes

Well thank christ there's a rugby match coming soon

Catalans v Leeds on Monday 7th has been postponed due to the Dragons being quarantined.

It's going to be a real issue fitting all these rearranged games in should there be any more clubs with positive tests.

I once stood on a TV plug, it hurt like buggery, you might be right.