Bahahaha

Republicans are nothing like the liberal party.

They are more like our racist One Nation Party.

Oh yeah I live in a labor state with next to nil covid cases.

Well done for showing you know sfa about Australian politics.

Well, your country is a perfect example of how left-leaning politicians are using draconian measures restricting people’s liberties all in the name of eradicating COVID, especially in the state of Victoria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8quxetI8wxY

I would also characterize your Labor v. Liberal Coalition rivalry as Aussie Democrat vs. Republican riff in the US, especially on the virus issues. Scott Morrison was selected to be your Prime Minister because of his strong support for Donald Trump, fyi.

The part on combrities, ie preexisting conditions. By watching how fiercely you and Gary were arguing about them, tells me how controversial it is.

“since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus”

I don’t know that, nor do I believe this claim and you have yet to prove it.

“It is not even controversial that antibody tests are not strain-specific.”

No it isn’t controversial, it is a false statement. One you keep making. Until you can provide actual evidence that the antibody test that the CDC claims are for covid-19 antibodies (as opposed to corona viruses in general) I will keep pointing out it is a false claim.

Is it me or do I small some Confirmation Bias? (Selective data here)

1. “According to the CDC (in the link I provided) there are”- This right here indicates that you didn’t read what I wrote or, possibly, didn’t understand it. I will simply repost what I wrote, so you can re-read it: “Clearly, this is simply intended to mean ‘if someone tests positive for any coronavirus antibodies…’, since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus the antibodies are from. It is presumably written in such a way for the layperson who doesn’t know that.”

2.”Again, you claim this but have provided no proof of that claim. From the link I gave (emphasis added):” It is not even controversial that antibody tests are not strain-specific. (Porbably never will be possible, either.) Regarding the verbiage in the link you sent, refer back to #1.

3. “..it is not A single test, various labs have developed different tests, with varying degrees of accuracy.” – Assuming you’re talking about antibody tests, the varying degrees of accuracy refer to the superior or inferior false positive/negative rate, NOT that more accurate tests can determine the genome (and thus strain) of the coronavirus that triggered the antibody creation by your body. Again, you do realize that antibody tests not being strain specific is as close a thing to “common knowledge” in the field as one can get, right?

4. “I don’t think it is “premature” to claim you are misrepresenting the facts” – It is increasingly being demonstrated that it was premature.

5. “…and then claim “I never said A was true” when challenged on it. which is exactly what you are doing here.” – Uh, no. My stance consistently has been that A=true is *not impossible*. I go even further in stating that it’s actually *likely*. I never state that A is true (though I believe it is), so your demand for evidence that it’s true makes no sense.

6. “you didn’t give this implication statement until AFTER I specifically ask you for evidence about the accuracy of antibody tests” – You demand elaboration, and then paint it as evasion!

7. “Except this isn’t “a fact” it is a claim you keep making over and over and have yet to provide any evidence of, even though I have asked you several times for your evidence.” – Refer to #2 and #3. This is like demanding evidence that motors don’t run on chocolate syrup. And the reason I keep having to claim “over and over” is because you keep failing to understand over and over.

8. “You’ll find that the tricks that are able to fool Trump supporters aren’t going to work here.” – Aha, maybe this explains your bizarre refusal to concede even singular, isolated points. You have been thinking this whole time to yourself “I can’t let a Trump supporter win” (maybe sub-consciously). I am not a Trump supporter. For your own sake, you should not let the Trump and the politics surrounding him get under your skin.

“There are no false positives, i.e. falsely indicating SARS-CoV-2”

According to the CDC (in the link I provided) there are. If you have evidence they are wrong, then present it. Otherwise the only thing that is false here are your claims about the anti-body tests.

“since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus the antibodies are from”

Again, you claim this but have provided no proof of that claim. From the link I gave (emphasis added):

“If someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ”

Not, “coronavirus antibodies” in general as you keep claiming (again without evidence) but specifically SARS-CoV-2 (covid-19) antibodies.

Further it is not A single test, various labs have developed different tests, with varying degrees of accuracy. One of the things the CDC (and/or FDA) does is to evaluate the accuracy of the different tests. Tests that get refined over time to improve their reliability.

“You are prematurely and unwisely using the word “misrepresenting””

You have repeatedly made several false or misleading claims, which I have pointed out, I don’t think it is “premature” to claim you are misrepresenting the facts.

“It would be bizarre to ask for evidence that A actually *is* true, since it is immaterial to the logical relationship”

Unless you are simply trying to imply “A is true” without evidence and then claim “I never said A was true” when challenged on it. which is exactly what you are doing here. Further you didn’t give this implication statement until AFTER I specifically ask you for evidence about the accuracy of antibody tests (i.e. the truth value of A in this example).

“doesn’t the fact that the antibody test produces a positive result for any coronavirus”

Except this isn’t “a fact” it is a claim you keep making over and over and have yet to provide any evidence of, even though I have asked you several times for your evidence.

You’ll find that the tricks that are able to fool Trump supporters aren’t going to work here.

“Why do YOU think they did that?” To stop people from losing confidence in the media reports of positive tests.

“where do you get that it was “by design” (in the sense that it was not intended to test for covid-19 antibodies)?” I think you didn’t understand my point. You asked me to find a source for the rate of false positives. There are no false positives, i.e. falsely indicating SARS-CoV-2 – there are just positives for coronavirus, and negatives for coronavirus.

Per your link: “If someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but does not really
have those specific antibodies, the result is a false positive” Clearly, this is simply intended to mean “if someone tests positive for any coronavirus antibodies…”, since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus the antibodies are from. It is presumably written in such a way for the layperson who doesn’t know that.

“You were misrepresenting the statement to
imply that the antibody tests couldn’t distinguish between covid-19 and
the common cold.” Obviously the difference between misrepresenting and using is a matter of opinion, specifically the opinion about the claim itself. You are prematurely and unwisely using the word “misrepresenting”, before the argument has been concluded, which I personally would never do, since there’s always a chance my opponent may convince me I was wrong, in which case I would then have to apologize for my accusation.

“do you have evidence of “massive false positives”?” In a hypothetical postulate such as the one I made, wherein I am claiming the possibility of something based upon that postulate, it is sufficient to show that A=true renders B=true a possibility. It would be bizarre to ask for evidence that A actually *is* true, since it is immaterial to the logical relationship. Furthermore, doesn’t the fact that the antibody test produces a positive result for any coronavirus already by definition demonstrate that there *must* be many, many “false” positives? I mean, there’s a reason they call it the *common* cold. It’s quite common. I understand there is a trendy compulsion to demand “sources” and “evidence” for every little thing one doesn’t agree with on the internet, but you actually must determine whether that demand makes logical sense. In my opinion, you are hiding a weakness in your ability to reason for yourself behind such demands, with all due respect.

I repeat my original hypothetical argument:
“Cases determined by what? The antibody test just means you have had any coronavirus in the last 12-18 months, which might well have been the common cold. That is from the CDC’s own website. And the PCR test was said by its own inventor that it should NOT be used to test for cases during a pandemic. Even the NYTimes had an article on the 28th or 29th of August admitting as such. It is not at all impossible that the entire thing is a massive deception.”

Yes, the change was talking about the viral test, not the antibody test. that is clear, but they replaced the line about the common cold with it, Why do YOU think they did that?

“The test is not capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies *by design*,”

where do you get that it was “by design” (in the sense that it was not intended to test for covid-19 antibodies)?

yes, it is a false postive. From the CDC Using Antibody Tests for COVID-19

If someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but does not really have those specific antibodies, the result is a false positive.

so I’ll ask again, do you have any evidence to back up your implication that the antibody tests had a high percentage of false positives?

“By “misrepresenting”, you mean “using”.”

No, I meant what I said. You were misrepresenting the statement to imply that the antibody tests couldn’t distinguish between covid-19 and the common cold.

“if the tests produce massive false positives”

do you have evidence of “massive false positives”?

“I didn’t know it was in the source until you provided the 2nd link.” In that case, pardon me for making the insuation that you wasted my time.

“Note: Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2.”: I assume that is referring to the PCR test- otherwise are we to believe they would alter the website to say the exact opposite of what it said previously? Even theoretically to dispel a myth, such an about face would be inexcusable, and far beyond merely removing this or that “misleading” sentence. And if they are indeed referring to the PCR test, it has no bearing on our debate in its present state, as I have already shown that the PCR’s inadequacies are quite uncontroversial.

“You seem to be implying a high percentage, do you have anything to back that up?”. This isn’t an issue of false positive rates. The test is not capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies *by design*, so technically there is no such thing as a false positive rate with regard to the “wrong” coronavirus. Now, the rate of misdiagnosis due to the bad test is obviously dependent on the rate of people who had a cold in the past.

“..because too many people like you were misrepresenting the statement to claim it is all a “massive deception”: I never claimed that (though I believe it)- I claimed that it’s not impossible. If one is coldly rational and not dismissing the possibility out of hand merely because it seems implausible or makes us upset, you would have to agree. It is not merely possible but fairly straightforward to do, if the tests produce massive false positives and you can cultivate through media control a high degree of public confidence in them and the overall narrative.

And why do you think they removed the comment about false positives from common cold antibodies?