Jump to content

Upo

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Stephen Fry was director of the club for 5 years. There's a great podcast in the club's Youtube channel with him as a guest.
  2. One must acknowledge some difficulty in distinguishing Emi as an individual from Emi as a partner in a remarkably productive relationship with Teemu. Before he scores, Pukki starts his run and Emi passes the ball to him. Q: Does Emi create the chance or does Pukki? I figure the duo is worth twice as much for us than they're worth separately to anyone else. Better remember this when somebody comes with an offer that looks "decent." That offer could end up costing us a season in PL.
  3. Good thinking. It truly was Teemu's annulus mirabilis. His xG was 22.67 and he scored 29. Those numbers were unbelievable. And unsustainable. We went up thinking we can afford to concede. For a few games we maybe looked like we can get away with it. Alas... Currently Teemu is on xG 13.59 with 15 goals. Nowhere near 2018/2019 numbers, but very good nonetheless. Especially with this relatively more defensive tack. if fit and no red cards, Buendia-Pukki pipeline is going to produce maybe 0.7 to 0.8 goals per game. In EPL the strategy for a small team is quite simply to avoid conceding. You only need to win against relegation competition. We are much better positioned for that than the old team.
  4. This is an informative and suprisingly balanced discussion masquerading as inflammatory BS. I wouldn't have watched it if you hadn't insisted. Thanks! So, they essentially sent the kids home without support and a plan how to bring them back safely. Apparently in UK and California this has gone on for better part of a year....without any commitment to stopping the virus. This is absolutely terrible. I thought about it and here's how to open schools: Decrease viral density in air and surfaces as close to zero as possible. This is how: Run an industrial (or a few consumer grade) air purifier unit(s) in the classroom through the schoolday. UV lights with infrared detectors destroy microbes safely from surfaces and air. These are already used in elevators. They work for a period of time (e.g. 10 minutes) when nobody is present. A handful of such lamps are placed smartly in a classroom to minimize "shadows". Ditto for hallways, toilets, lockerrooms etc. Hourly 15 minute breaks are convenient to empty classrooms and other spaces. FFP2/KN95 masks when there is *any* community spread. Every breath taken with a mask on is a victory. Masks should be offered freely and changed a few times during the day. Undamaged masks can easily be cleaned and reused. Protective glasses can complement masks during high-risk activities. Periodical mass testing and probabilistically targeted testing, and tracing (families, hobbies). "Soft" distance learning: Highly functioning children can spend some time away with negligible if any impact on learning. Some benefit from fewer distractions. Costs would amount to 3000-6000 € per classroom plus running costs.
  5. Do you mean what I wrote? But yeah, one thing that I know will help us later is we get a real time sequencing surveillance connected to stand-by test-trace-isolate-secure units, hotline to someone in chain of command with a brain and well funded vaccine development pipeline with capacity to create vaccines for the whole population in days, and then roll it out to all locations with teams that stick them into people wherever they meet them and keep an eye on them for an hour in case of an allergic reaction or fainting. Doesn't require a professional. About 15 minutes of practical instruction should do and a phone number/video link with multiple redundancy to an actual professional in case of trouble.
  6. That article seems to use "platform tech", "template" and "vaccine" interchangeably. Most likely poor journalism. The virus didn't exist pre 2019. The vaccine did not either. It had to be developed from scratch. Protocols to ensure efficacy and safety are absolutely central to developing it. That we had vaccine within a year is the biggest scientific achievement this millenium. It is the result of billions and billions of $ and thousands and thousands of scientists working tirelessly towards it. It's a revolution. And yet its effectiveness depends on implementing brute force measures that suppress the epidemic to stop the virus from escaping. Everybody should still take their vaccine.
  7. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202101.0132/v1 There is no "alarmism" with this virus. There is literally no measures that are "too extreme" apart from upholding the first moral principle of a republic under rule of law: equal right to life and equal right to secondary rights once first right is secured And "Panic" is just a compulsively used term by confused officials out of their confort zones. It's a damn meme. People rarely panic. Most keep doing whatever in denial or sit down and wait for instructions or death. People need to be shaken out of their stupor. That's surprisingly difficult. They resist taking initiative. But in emergencies they do obey when told what to do even if it's really unconfortable. All we need is a leader with spine and good judgment.
  8. What I'm seeing is more alarm among researchers than at any point during pandemic. The profession was caught pants down and now have to come up with a whole new paradigm after the old one collapsed. 6 weeks for a new vaccine to get to where we're now...6 to 9 months away from full vaccination. We're working in real time here against probabilities. Hours, not dates. Those thinking in terms of weeks are either innumerate or don't understand it's not today's virus we're fighting. It's tomorrow's iteration, and the day after's etc Higher R0 means higher proportion of population have to be vaccinated to suppress spread. That means more time to escape for a strain that is more than halfway there. A virus that mutates into a deadly one doesn't give a warning beforehand. If you're trailing the virus, you're training the virus. The best case scenario is acceleration in vaccinations under measures that would have suppressed the pandemic a month ago but can now only just about hold our noses above water. The worst case is somewhere between Outbreak and 12 Monkeys.
  9. Looks like it has leveled up fighting lions in Africa. Emergence and rapid spread of a new severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineage with multiple spike mutations in South Africa Also in Brazil The B1.1.7 strain spreading out of control in UK (and soon elsewhere) lacks the E484 mutation. Slow roll out and incomplete immunity from vaccines gives UK strain plenty of "leveling up" opportunities against partial immunity "training opponent". As the vaccinations and infections spread in population, less susceptible strains will be selected as the dominant ones. But since we already have superspreading strains with E484, mutation in UK is not actually needed. You already have the South African strain in circulation. It'll be selected once immunity level to B117 has increased sufficiently. There is no particular reason currently dominant strains losing ground to superspreading strains won't acquire similar mutations. It looks to be "common". One more epidemiologic assumption Covid-19 has trashed. After some time all strains end up having superspreading and immunity escaping mutations. Strains that develop further mutations in these will die quickly, except if the mutation increases infectivity. How do you apply selection pressure to achieve that? With incomplete suppression policies i.e. "lockdowns" instead of *lockdowns*. You end up training the virus instead of destroying it. There is a happy clapping meme that has circulated epidemiologists for a long time and that is that because it's not in the virus' "best interest" to kill its host, a milder strain would be selected over the long term and the more dangerous a strain is, the less it spreads. Viruses don't know this meme. Viruses don't know anything. They infect if infection is possible. A more severe infection may cause increased viral spread. Often does. More coughing and more viruses in each cough? Like 10 times more viruses, three times as many coughs...half as early in infection? - A strain that is expelled at dozens of times the rate of a normal variant one or two days earlier. I think it's probably much more difficult for a virus to become more infectious than deadlier. Deadly mutations just won't spread around unless have a competitive edge, whereas a single infectious mutation can dominate all other strains. If deadly variants spread widely around, we'd know about it. All things equal a more dangerous strain probably is detected earlier, the host quarantined sooner and consequently spread prevented. But since we haven't analyzed viral RNA widely, we've had no idea what strains are spreading especially if they're suppressed early and remain local. How deadly? SARS1 and MERS have IFR of 10% and 35% respectively. UK's border closures and alert RNA sequencing has bought others a few weeks extra time. It is being wasted. We're all in the same boat. It's a race against a hopefully low probability event before the virus gets there. Within weeks we'll have conditions in place all over the world that give the optimal environment for a strain be selected for "escaping".
  10. I don't think you understand what allowing controlled spread of the disease means. It literally means allowing controlled spread of the disease. It doesn't matter if it takes 3 months or 3 years. The logical conclusion is spread of disease until level of immunity in population suppresses the viral spread. That means about 70 to 80% get the infection. 0.5-1% of them die. A vastly larger number will walk around with scrambled brains. I wasn't aware there were concentration camps in NZ and Australia. China's camps never had anything do with covid-19. What is shocking is that a totalitarian state like China has managed a vastly more humane response to Covid-19. China saved the lives of million of its citizens while Trump's USA and Johnson's UK have managed to get half a million of theirs killed by incompetence and malice, and Sweden went full genocide on theirs. The number of victims is likely to double before its over. Who could have thought that in humanitarian terms China >> Sweden in 2020?
  11. About 6 weeks should do it. Then you can see whoever, except not in potential mass spreading events. Rock concerts only after vaccines. While government action alone isn't sufficient to suppress the epidemic, government action is necessary to suppress the epidemic. Strawman. You only need to suppress the epidemic once if you're thorough first and then keep it at near-zero by being somewhat smart. It is not a seasonal disease.
  12. First, the opportunity cost of not diverting resources to NHS etc is not zero. If the opportunity cost for health care was higher than no healthcare, we wouldn't have health care. People wouldn't go see doctors. They'd just die from whatever gets them first. As it stands, people like to live. That's why people like the NHS, especially when they're drowning in their lung fluids. Second, you make the assumption that "diverting resources" means these resources are removed from other - presumably more important - uses. In reality there are no significant resources that can be diverted to health care. That is the reason mitigation will eventually end in failure. There is no spare capacity. No secret reserve from which to draw staff and equipment. If you calculate the worth of human life in purely economic terms, the only conclusion you will arrive at is that we should suppress the epidemic ASAP. If you half-a** the suppression by not committing to getting infections to zero and not enforce these restrictions appropriately, lifting them early only means you have to soon reimplement them. Ask yourself this question: If your house was on fire, and the firemen put out everything but the kitchen table, would you expect to not having to call them back fairly soon? As far as the sacrificies goes, not being able to party and go on beach holidays is less tragic than dying. I don't even know what you are arguing. Data is clear about this. It's the virus that causes most of the economic damage, not the restrictions. If you don't understand why people at risk haven't been protected, it's because you haven't really thought about it. We can't isolate risk groups without isolating people who are in contact with them. That means isolating health care workers and their families. Then we have the ethical problem of shutting millions outside society so that the young can go on partying. Casedemic meme died many months ago. What you are arguing about is a bucket of water in a stream of tragedy and death. It seems like that's what you're trying to argue for, but all the arguments seem to support the opposite conclusion: that it is good business to suppress the epidemic fully. The reason for strict restrictions is to get to less restrictions. No disagreement there. It's been a s***show apart from the vaccines. Let's hear your thoughts on what groups of people shouldn't be treated in absolute terms.
  13. If the viral spread depends on the local level of infection in the spring, we should be seeing significantly slowed down spread in locations that took a big hit in the fall. Nowhere is this seen. It's the opposite. The confounding factors is that some places that got hit bad early on in spring like NY for example also implemented strong restrictions. These restrictions have been kept in place to an extent and used again effectively. Also people change their behaviour when they get scared. The reality is that countries that did well in the spring like Finland for example, have continued doing well, despite having negligible prevalence of antibodies. Meanwhile in UK and Sweden which really have had substantial exposure to the virus - as proven by their massive fatality figures - is seeing rapidly accelerating spread of disease. This isn't a good way to put it. He should say that some restrictions have to remain in place after strict policies required for full suppression have been lifted. As long as R < 1.0, the virus will eventually die out unless it's replenished by leaky borders. Yes. That's what I'm arguing. That has happened in every country that has not committed to suppressing the disease. That even includes countries like Denmark and Norway which have done reasonably well, although that just means they have failed less. Unless suppression is the explicit goal, mitigation is the policy. Mitigation = allow controlled spread of disease = let as many people die and suffer as possible. Mitigation always and everywhere means maximal number of people that can die directly from infection will die directly from infection. Mitigation measures only mean that they die slowly, thus preventing too many "excess" deaths that would result from unavailability of health care resources for any purpose. Mitigation is by definition evil. To not declare suppression as the goal is to actitvely participate in committing that atrocity. To do nothing is an active decision. There is a level of evil that ranges from turning a gas chamber's valve open, and finding people in gas chamber and not closing the valve. Most western governments are actively participating in the latter evil. Some officials have deliberately kept schools open to allow spread of disease into population. This is equivalent to stopping somebody else closing the valve. Now regarding Germany, it must be said that Angela Merkel to my knowledge has been for strict measures, but local governments have put the breaks on because of the fallacy of false choice between lives and money. What is so disturbing is how readily our political establishment and public institutions internalized this evil fallacy. As if they had been looking for opportunity to prove that you can buy GDP with blood. What they proved instead is that economy depends on people's wellbeing.
  14. That's a meme that arises from judgment errors regarding causality relationships and deliberately ignoring all counterfactual evidence. The virus isn't spreading in NZ or Australia despite spreading in California. 30C in CA is 30C in NZ. The virus doesn't know where it is. The virus hasn't had any difficulty whatsoever spreading in humid and hot conditions. All it needs are people who breathe in the same space. UV light and higher temperature/humidity do shorten the lifespan of Covid-19 significantly...on surfaces. That doesn't matter much since people catch it indoors from aerosols and indoor temperature is universally between 20-25C. The virus doesn't take 2 weeks to float from your neighbour to your nose - time it would take to inactivate the virus in room temperature without UV light. You get in in minutes. But it still looks seasonal, right? Well, the confounding factor is people act certain way at certain time of year. For example: Schools open in fall after summer, and people spend more time indoors because it's cold and wet. This leads to increase in close contacts. The virus doesn't know anything. The virus is not independently seasonal. The opportunities for contagion depend on human behaviour, which very much is seasonal. It's the culture! Disrupting cultural patterns stops the viral spread. It's called suppression. Now these quacks have claimed all along that society's functions shouldn't be changed, because the virus is seasonal and therefore everything is pointless. Circular reasoning. It's only seasonal because of society's functions in the first place. This is what I mean by self-fulfilling prophecies.
  15. While I agree with the sentiment of you reasoning here, it's best start from the correct premises: Each new wave is the result of a deliberate political decision to allow the spread of the infection. Nothing about it is how pandemics are supposed to behave. Proper epidemiological modeling depends on all inputs, including countermeasures. If you exclude countermeasures as irrelevant (fatalism) from the get go, you're no longer applying science but ideology. If you choose not to suppress covid-19, by definition you have to keep mitigating it or the spread goes inevitably from "controlled" to "oh boy nobody saw THIS coming". Power makes influential people's prophecies self-fulfilling. The uniting factor between countries that have succeeded in suppression is... the decision to suppress it. Where there is a will there is a way. Edit. Accidentally put Vietnam twice instead of NZ...but you get it.
×
×
  • Create New...