佢年頭係叫過政府封
咁結果呢，冇封到
佢今次有冇屌呀？加上佢有彈出彈入記錄，你唔次次講我唔知你今次係咪真
我冇覺得佢偏幫政府，純粹覺得佢係防疫作用上係廢人
點解大家咁憎袁國勇
DaguVaMA
607 回覆
1744 Like
203 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁
This is fucking true 😄😄
1. 建議離地／不設實際
條友唔除口罩用飲管飲酒都嗡得出 有冇諗下自己嘅建議可唔可行？去酒吧飲酒嘅人接唔接受到
條友仲on9到話酒吧業界同意佢嘅建議 正常人都知唔撚work啦
人地費時當面笑鳩佢咋
（佢提出完呢d on9建議之後有靜過一排 應該係有人提過／屌過佢 但最近又死返出嚟鳩嗡）
呢樣野其實反映咗佢成世淨係係個lab到做研究 唔知出面世界發生咩事 （當然呢個都係好多學者嘅通病）一個咁不問世事嘅人 有咩資格係到對市民生活指指點點？返去研究微生物算啦
2. 散播恐懼
作為專家 佢應該將成個full picture話俾人知 而唔係日撚日係到鳩嗡第幾波第幾波 日鳩日數住有幾多單確診
要俾市民更加全面咁了解呢隻病 係咪都應該講下確診人士嘅情況係點？有冇發現有啲咩後遺症？應該都要講下有幾多％病徵輕微甚至冇病徵 由確診到出院完全冇任何唔舒服 唔檢都唔知自己中
一開頭個個都恐懼係正常嘅 但時間耐咗 大家都知道隻毒威力唔強 所以都覺得再咁恐懼係on99
第四波好嚴重？果班上咗年紀嘅闊太死晒未？ 淨係睇確診數字可以概括一切？
3. 屌市民唔屌政府
上面好多人都講咗 一有咩事就出嚟屌鳩市民
第四波係政府邊境把關得唔好所導致 係咪一日香港人未全民打晒疫苗 一日都唔可以有社交活動／出街玩？再咁樣搞落去 經濟／對市民精神傷害一定大過隻垃圾病毒本身
唔明點解呢個所謂專家仲有咁多人支持
條友唔除口罩用飲管飲酒都嗡得出 有冇諗下自己嘅建議可唔可行？去酒吧飲酒嘅人接唔接受到
條友仲on9到話酒吧業界同意佢嘅建議 正常人都知唔撚work啦
人地費時當面笑鳩佢咋（佢提出完呢d on9建議之後有靜過一排 應該係有人提過／屌過佢 但最近又死返出嚟鳩嗡）
呢樣野其實反映咗佢成世淨係係個lab到做研究 唔知出面世界發生咩事 （當然呢個都係好多學者嘅通病）一個咁不問世事嘅人 有咩資格係到對市民生活指指點點？返去研究微生物算啦
2. 散播恐懼
作為專家 佢應該將成個full picture話俾人知 而唔係日撚日係到鳩嗡第幾波第幾波 日鳩日數住有幾多單確診
要俾市民更加全面咁了解呢隻病 係咪都應該講下確診人士嘅情況係點？有冇發現有啲咩後遺症？應該都要講下有幾多％病徵輕微甚至冇病徵 由確診到出院完全冇任何唔舒服 唔檢都唔知自己中
一開頭個個都恐懼係正常嘅 但時間耐咗 大家都知道隻毒威力唔強 所以都覺得再咁恐懼係on99
第四波好嚴重？果班上咗年紀嘅闊太死晒未？ 淨係睇確診數字可以概括一切？
3. 屌市民唔屌政府
上面好多人都講咗 一有咩事就出嚟屌鳩市民
第四波係政府邊境把關得唔好所導致 係咪一日香港人未全民打晒疫苗 一日都唔可以有社交活動／出街玩？再咁樣搞落去 經濟／對市民精神傷害一定大過隻垃圾病毒本身
唔明點解呢個所謂專家仲有咁多人支持
某一範疇嘅專家講公共政策嘢，唔係話唔可以「只睇自己嗰瓣」，但如果一路都係咁而又漠視其他因素以至損害嘅話，畀人屌又有咩出奇？
政府走狗都有打手
冇錯 一個醫學專家公開地向全香港市民講啲唔係佢個範疇嘅嘢
柒咗之後就話：唔關我事呀 我醫生嚟㗎咋 我唔識政治/經濟㗎
咁樣本身已經係唔負責任嘅表現
你係唔識嘅就淨係講醫學嘢（病毒可以係邊到存活幾耐果啲）講啲咩唔檢測就要監禁已經係牽涉政治/法律啦
柒咗之後就話：唔關我事呀 我醫生嚟㗎咋 我唔識政治/經濟㗎
咁樣本身已經係唔負責任嘅表現
你係唔識嘅就淨係講醫學嘢（病毒可以係邊到存活幾耐果啲）講啲咩唔檢測就要監禁已經係牽涉政治/法律啦
好似得你憎佢
. 好敢言喎
. 好敢言喎咁係咪要一日未完武肺 一日都stay home 咁樣未中武肺都抑鬱咗啦
話全面禁堂食都知佢on9
成班弱智當政府既人係英雄先可笑
仲lockdown。。知唔知有幾多人失業 幾多小店捱唔住
利申：冇
你上youtube搵下rthk 訪問佢d片先啦
我都唔支持lockdown什至我支持全民中招，但我唔認為佢醫生身份講呢d有錯
再重申一次我支持全民染疫，我觀點係袁國勇身處其位佢到目前講嘢都好公道
佢唔係醫學家 係微生物學家 仲要係幫政府做嘢嘅微生物學家
佢係離地，唔理黑警選擇性執法亂用限聚令，但起碼佢敢同港共唱反調
老老實實， 唔憎佢。而且覺得佢建議都好合理&正常。
覺得佢幾有道理，老舞群組的確係有人唔聽話所以出事。 不過係有啲人特登自行演繹出其他意思帶風向。
係防疫和醫生角度，不斷全民檢測緊係最好，不過唔現實咁解和。 好似醫生要你戒口一定係醫療角度出發最好，不過都唔係個個聽話戒口咁解。
建議&呼籲戒口好合理， 唔係強制綁起你戒口就無問題。
覺得佢幾有道理，老舞群組的確係有人唔聽話所以出事。 不過係有啲人特登自行演繹出其他意思帶風向。
係防疫和醫生角度，不斷全民檢測緊係最好，不過唔現實咁解和。 好似醫生要你戒口一定係醫療角度出發最好，不過都唔係個個聽話戒口咁解。
建議&呼籲戒口好合理， 唔係強制綁起你戒口就無問題。
佢本身都係外科醫生黎
班醫生係幫藥廠做嘢, 佢哋一開始已經講大話
係香港人呢D生番, 先連最基本常識都無
係香港人呢D生番, 先連最基本常識都無
講真有咩好辯護，成班醫生擺到明係度講大話
如果呢個大話爆咗，成班友都唔駛指意有得甩身
1）PCR test "has no clear threshold"係大話嚟
連Fauci 都講到明，多過35 ct係false positive
https://youtu.be/A867t1JbIrs
2）係美國已經不斷用PCR嚟製造false positive
我唔敢講香港唔係做緊相同嘅嘢，從來冇人挑戰過個感染數字
誤用PCR test嚟製造casedemic, 導致全球lockdown, 經濟崩潰, 已經係德國告上法庭，罪名係crimes against humanity
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
如果呢個大話爆咗，成班友都唔駛指意有得甩身
1）PCR test "has no clear threshold"係大話嚟
連Fauci 都講到明，多過35 ct係false positive
https://youtu.be/A867t1JbIrs
2）係美國已經不斷用PCR嚟製造false positive
我唔敢講香港唔係做緊相同嘅嘢，從來冇人挑戰過個感染數字
誤用PCR test嚟製造casedemic, 導致全球lockdown, 經濟崩潰, 已經係德國告上法庭，罪名係crimes against humanity
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
佢冇做醫生好耐
佢係政府專家顧問、港大微生物學系講座教授
佢係政府專家顧問、港大微生物學系講座教授
只要每次爆發都出黎講源頭係中國
政府唔封關係垃撚圾
就會得到連登一致正評
政府唔封關係垃撚圾
就會得到連登一致正評
因為PCR唔適合用嚟做診斷告得入嘅第一單官司
https://www.portugalresident.com/judges-in-portugal-highlight-more-than-debatable-reliability-of-covid-tests/
Judges in Portugal highlight “more than debatable” reliability of Covid tests
With the country assailed daily by news of rising case numbers, judges in Lisbon have described the reliability of tests being rolled out in their tens of thousands as “more than debatable”.
Indeed, they cite a study that suggests only 3% of positive tests declared by health authorities may be ‘true positives’.
A 34-page ruling on an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four German tourists ‘illegally confined’ to a hotel in the Azores over the summer leaves no doubt that a positive RT-PCR test cannot be taken on face value.
Few media sources however have touched on this aspect of the Lisbon Appeal Court ruling – and those that have have given it the scantest of mentions.
The judges’ deliberations nonetheless are loud and clear – set out over three pages.
The panel looked into the reliability of RT-PCR tests due the enforced confinement of the holidaymakers in question because one had tested positive.
Said the ruling, dated November 11: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”.
RT-PCR tests (standing for polymerase chain reaction tests) “are performed by amplifying samples through repetitive cycles”.
“The number of cycles of such amplification results in a greater or lesser reliability of such tests. And the problem is that this reliability shows itself, in terms of scientific evidence (…) as more than debatable.”
It’s here the ruling cites a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists in this material” published by the Oxford Academic at the end of September.
“At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remain positive in cell culture (i.e. were infected): in a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; in a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive and in a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in the culture”.
“This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a threshold of cycles of 35 or higher (as happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected is less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”.
The judges stress that they “were unable to find any recommendations or rulings” on the number of amplifications used in tests carried out by Portuguese health authorities.
But they went on to cite a second study, published in the Lancet, that suggests “any diagnostic tests should be interpreted in the context of the effective possibility of the disease existing” before the test is actually carried out.
This is not what happens in Portugal – which logs ‘thousands of asymptomatic cases every day’, obliging them all to go into quarantine.
The bottom line is that these ‘asymptomatic positives’ may not be positives at all.
But while Lisbon’s appeal court appears to have accepted doubts raised by experts over the reliability of RT-PCR tests, DGS health authorities continue to use them – and the government and media continue to trumpet them as reasons for maintaining the current State of Emergency, which the country heard tonight may well continue beyond December 8 (see new story on main page).
https://www.portugalresident.com/judges-in-portugal-highlight-more-than-debatable-reliability-of-covid-tests/
Judges in Portugal highlight “more than debatable” reliability of Covid tests
With the country assailed daily by news of rising case numbers, judges in Lisbon have described the reliability of tests being rolled out in their tens of thousands as “more than debatable”.
Indeed, they cite a study that suggests only 3% of positive tests declared by health authorities may be ‘true positives’.
A 34-page ruling on an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four German tourists ‘illegally confined’ to a hotel in the Azores over the summer leaves no doubt that a positive RT-PCR test cannot be taken on face value.
Few media sources however have touched on this aspect of the Lisbon Appeal Court ruling – and those that have have given it the scantest of mentions.
The judges’ deliberations nonetheless are loud and clear – set out over three pages.
The panel looked into the reliability of RT-PCR tests due the enforced confinement of the holidaymakers in question because one had tested positive.
Said the ruling, dated November 11: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”.
RT-PCR tests (standing for polymerase chain reaction tests) “are performed by amplifying samples through repetitive cycles”.
“The number of cycles of such amplification results in a greater or lesser reliability of such tests. And the problem is that this reliability shows itself, in terms of scientific evidence (…) as more than debatable.”
It’s here the ruling cites a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists in this material” published by the Oxford Academic at the end of September.
“At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remain positive in cell culture (i.e. were infected): in a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; in a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive and in a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in the culture”.
“This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a threshold of cycles of 35 or higher (as happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected is less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”.
The judges stress that they “were unable to find any recommendations or rulings” on the number of amplifications used in tests carried out by Portuguese health authorities.
But they went on to cite a second study, published in the Lancet, that suggests “any diagnostic tests should be interpreted in the context of the effective possibility of the disease existing” before the test is actually carried out.
This is not what happens in Portugal – which logs ‘thousands of asymptomatic cases every day’, obliging them all to go into quarantine.
The bottom line is that these ‘asymptomatic positives’ may not be positives at all.
But while Lisbon’s appeal court appears to have accepted doubts raised by experts over the reliability of RT-PCR tests, DGS health authorities continue to use them – and the government and media continue to trumpet them as reasons for maintaining the current State of Emergency, which the country heard tonight may well continue beyond December 8 (see new story on main page).