Paul Weston on Mass Testing and the New Lockdown in the UK

In his latest video, Paul Weston discusses a new COVID-19 test which has been used to mass-test 100,000 people in Liverpool.

Until I watched this video, I hadn’t heard of the lateral flow test, which is also called a “lateral flow immunochromatographic assay”. According to an article from November 11 on the official website of Oxford University:

Extensive clinical evaluation from Public Health England and the University of Oxford show Lateral Flow Tests are accurate and sensitive enough to be used in the community, including for asymptomatic people.

Since then the lateral flow test has been touted by Her Majesty’s Caudillo, Boris “BoJo” Johnson. As Mr. Weston points out, the hoopla surrounding the new test has all but vanished since the tested Liverpudlians yielded such a disappointingly low number of positive “cases”. Thus, if BoJo is going to walk back the lateral flow test, he’ll have to do so over all those glowing recommendations for it. Perhaps the boffins at Oxford will make themselves obligingly prostrate when the boot heels of the Prime Minister go a-wandering their way…

9 thoughts on “Paul Weston on Mass Testing and the New Lockdown in the UK

  1. The quiet article, that did not get great media attention that seems to use the “rapid testing”.
    “The combination of the mass testing and the measures in Liverpool have brought the cases down really quite remarkably, much faster than I would have thought was possible.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-55044488

    The new test
    Lateral Flow Tests are rapid turnaround tests that can process COVID-19 samples on site without the need for laboratory equipment, with most generating results in under half an hour.
    These new tests are being piloted across England, including a two-week whole-city pilot in Liverpool, which was launched last week.
    11th November

    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-11-oxford-university-and-phe-confirm-lateral-flow-tests-show-high-specificity-and-are

    The PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal.
    While the court has deemed the test to be unreliable, medical experts have hit back against these claims, stating the judges have acted “irresponsibly” in their ruling. ……

    Now, from reading the article, the judges conclude that “the probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”. According to the investigation, this only happens if the cycle threshold is higher than 35 “as it happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe”, reads the judgment.
    This information is considered to be inaccurate by Vasco Barreto, who states that where he works at Cedoc “42% of the positive tests, only 25 or less cycles were needed and there is scientific evidence of the high capacity of the virus to spread from “positive” cases to less than 25 cycles”.

    https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-27/covid-pcr-test-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962

    It almost seems like the counter argument is, great to get the + ive test at
    lower cycles, but increase the cycles until covid is deemed to be found.

    Does this effect legality of lockdowns.
    If the health systems are serious why not change to the new tests?

    Questions need to be asked about this in the media, all over the world.

  2. Heheh…Back to the 98% false positive PCR test, then. Can’t have accurate testing showing the dread plague…is just a cold.
    We must not waste this opportunity! Dr. Evil…I mean, Klaus Schwab…has spoken.

  3. All very well, but countries that have instituted mass testing (Taiwan, Slovakia) have almost eliminated the virus, without the draconian measures employed in China.

  4. Opportunity , Schwab , you will end up in prison with Your disgusting elite , Merkel, Macron , Soros, Gates and on and on , this is crime against humanity, I don’t know anymore how people can’t see this scum, I guess they are stupid enough..

  5. Her Majesty’s Caudillo, Boris “BoJo” Johnson is, incidentally, the UK’s first Muslim Prime Minister.

    I’m quite serious. I based myself on the Sharia, which states that one is Muslim is one’s father is Muslim, and that it’s impossible to convert away.

    BoJo’s paternal great-grandfather was Ali Kemal Bey, as discussed on BoJo’s father’s Wikipedia page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Johnson_(writer)

    I’m surprised that our friends in Sharia4UK and the like haven’t taken note of this with pride.

  6. There’s still the concept of the trade-off. We have to accept a certain number of deaths as the price for leading a normal or near-normal life. In our era of socialized benefits and socialized risks, any discussion of benefits versus cost is kept hidden. For instance, I heard that 90% of the cost of medical treatment is in the last 6 months or so of life. In other words, it is very expensive to keep terminally-ill people alive for a slightly longer time than they would have had otherwise. The state solution is the “death committees” who decide who is to live and who is to die. Or, you can have iron-clad rules where a perfectly-healthy, active and alert 75-year-old is denied a heart operation, and a terminally-ill, 50-year-old cancer patient is eligible.

    The solution, of course, is to provide a very basic palliative care regimen, and anyone who wants more can have supplementary insurance. The point is to make health decisions a matter for the individual rather than for the state.

    • Just like in the Soviet Union, where older people were denied operations, being as they were deemed not to be worthwhile.

      Now, I don’t think I would want a major operation that extends life by a few weeks, or some such. Most people are probably the same. I figure that we should get to make our own choices, though – not have them imposed externally.

      Any other attitude very quickly leads to a committee (mostly composed of leftists, surely) getting to sit around and decide on whom is worthy of being cared for. No thanks.

      • Well, that is the whole idea about liberty, isn’t it. We are suppose to have a system where we can decide these things. Although, life often doesn’t turn out that way.

        I wouldn’t want to bother with an intense operation at any time in my life now, much less when I get older. But, yes it is the good thing to be able to decide for oneself. After all, if the state decided this for us, what other oppressive decisions would they be tempted to impose on us?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.