Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 

So to sum up I don't support the government or its policies and its not simply because they are incompetent in implementing their policies but because they are incompetent in every aspect of governance, 

I suspect (actually i am sure) that you do support the stated policy but can't bring yourself to say it. Either that or you can't remember what the strategy is.

Its perfectly  fine to say that you support the general approach but believe that it has been badly executed in this or that respect . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

But you were prepared to believe Professor Fergusson and his data model of 250,000 deaths, even though he had previously been involved in disputed research in 2011 that led to the mass culling of farm animals. He also predicted 150,000 would die from BSE, the actuality was 200. And his modelling methodology was highly criticised as having many flawed assumptions.

We are now in this mess because Ferguson's poor modelling attempts were the 'science' that the government listened to. So now we know how wrong the whole basis was, why still blindly follow it?

He has an absolute history of failure, predicted up to 200 million could die from bird flu in 2005, 282 people died worldwide...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

This is unfair. The professor gave an assessment based on disosed criteria.  No one would have understood it as cast iron and they were quite entitled to ask him to re run the figures on alternative assumptions 

No, it's not unfair because 250,000 deaths is the number that Ferguson first came up with and published to the public domain and that was the figure that was reported in the media and the numbers that the government first ran with in order to justify a lockdown. Whether they asked him to redo his sums to come up with a more palatable number is beside the point because the damage was already done in the first publication. It set the tone for the climate of fear that has surrounded Covid-19 ever since.

We now have several months of data to prove that initial science was wrong and there is a growing body of criticism based upon the analysis of data that is now available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

No, it's not unfair because 250,000 deaths is the number that Ferguson first came up with and published to the public domain and that was the figure that was reported in the media and the numbers that the government first ran with in order to justify a lockdown. Whether they asked him to redo his sums to come up with a more palatable number is beside the point because the damage was already done in the first publication. It set the tone for the climate of fear that has surrounded Covid-19 ever since.

We now have several months of data to prove that initial science was wrong and there is a growing body of criticism based upon the analysis of data that is now available. 

I dont think he made a prediction, more an analysis of what might happen if certain assumptions about the R number etc are made.  I certainly didn't see it as a prediction more a worst case scenario forecast with a fairly low confidence base.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

No, it's not unfair because 250,000 deaths is the number that Ferguson first came up with and published to the public domain and that was the figure that was reported in the media and the numbers that the government first ran with in order to justify a lockdown. Whether they asked him to redo his sums to come up with a more palatable number is beside the point because the damage was already done in the first publication. It set the tone for the climate of fear that has surrounded Covid-19 ever since.

We now have several months of data to prove that initial science was wrong and there is a growing body of criticism based upon the analysis of data that is now available. 

The first wave killed over 40 thousand people and that was with a lockdown. Maybe 250k was a worst case scenario figure and we wouldn't have got there, but because the figure was so bleak the government finally got its act together. Maybe you be applauding Mr Ferguson for saving over 200k lives??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Herman said:

The first wave killed over 40 thousand people and that was with a lockdown. Maybe 250k was a worst case scenario figure and we wouldn't have got there, but because the figure was so bleak the government finally got its act together. Maybe you be applauding Mr Ferguson for saving over 200k lives??

Given that we now have ten months experience with Covid-19 and all the associated data, do you believe that government measures have saved over 200k lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ricardo said:

321k  tests

20890 - 102         7days ago 18804       14 days ago  13972

positives continue up and down a bit within a small range all much of a muchness

 

Inpatients  7850    no update since Saturday

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European. 

Italy   21273 - 128          positives edging up

France 52010 - 116     yet another record number of positives

Spain             second day of  no report

Germany  9829 - 27

Likely looking at over 30k positives by Wednesday and maybe deaths above 250 if the steady weekly rise in both stats edges up as it has done these past  few weeks, but some Euro nations like Belgium and Switzerland have produced  much higher  infections per head of pop. in last few days than here at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Given that we now have ten months experience with Covid-19 and all the associated data, do you believe that government measures have saved over 200k lives?

if the other option is letting it rip then yes, 250k total deaths from covid isn't against the realms of possibilities. Its only 0.3% of the population so it makes sense as a worst case scenario. We have an old population as well which doesn't help our cause

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ricardo said:

Just watched it. Some good news

Yep the TV report had even more good news as you have eluded to in they have now worked out even screening will not be effected.

Fascinating how there are now secure screens to ensure ICU beds can be used deciding wards into 2 but being secure. Was also interesting that they said the delaying of less urgent treatments was only down to staff shortages, rather than you can’t come in anymore.

Hopefully this means they have used the Summer to solve the problems none of us could answer as to how it could be done. Fair play to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Teemu’s right foot said:

He has an absolute history of failure, predicted up to 200 million could die from bird flu in 2005, 282 people died worldwide...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked

This is an article from the 6/4/2020.
There are now of course real statistics that can actually with some certainty predict how many people based on risk would die if 80 % of the population were infected. 
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tetteys Jig said:

if the other option is letting it rip then yes, 250k total deaths from covid isn't against the realms of possibilities. Its only 0.3% of the population so it makes sense as a worst case scenario. We have an old population as well which doesn't help our cause

Hi TJ

If it helps I have just put a link with the actual against the predicted, have a look it’s very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If proved true a vaccine or a cure now becomes a little bit more important. The good news is the phase 2 Oxford results shew that the immune system was still responding well after a period of time even in the older age groups. For those that follow ZOE this does follow their concern a couple of weeks ago that it seemed ( stress seemed ) that a number of people were becoming reinfected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54696873

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - but 0.27% of say 60M is of course 162,000 deaths. I suppose that could be called optimistic. Only 100,000 to go.

The figures are 0.23 % of the overall population

It then becomes 0.05% of the under 70's

So your math is completely wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, if we have nearly reached herd immunity, why do we need to roll out the vaccine. 

If you want it , then take it, if you want to lock yourself up then do it, if you want to wear a mask then wear one.STOP ENFORCING YOUR FEARS ON THE POPULATION, YOU ARE MAKING THEM ILL AND DESTROYING THE ECONOMY. 

Why do people want young people to be vaccinated against a virus that has practically no effect on them? You do realise that vaccines are not without risk , don't you?

As for the efficacy, well the seasonal flu vaccine has an efficacy of about 50%, it is far more effective on the young as it is on the old and if your over 75 has little benefit. 

As for , they been developing the vaccine for years, you're right 40 years and counting, still haven't managed it.

You're being taken for a ride by liars , lobbyists and big corporations!

Let's see if Patrick Valence sues Mike Yeadon for liable.....bet he doesn't ( Mike Yeadon is also formerly an employee of Pfizer)

If you still trust him after all of that , you need your head testing.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

This is unfair. The professor gave an assessment based on disosed criteria.  No one would have understood it as cast iron and they were quite entitled to ask him to re run the figures on alternative assumptions 

This is completely fair, the Swedish looked at it and thought it was nonsense, he based the whole thing off of 6 people!!!

The bloke should not be in a job, he's utterly useless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who is sick to death of facts, figures, pie charts and graphs etc. I began to lose interest when all those positive results were lost a few weeks ago because the spreadsheet wasn't big enough. I was glued to them daily before that.

I am now convinced that they fail to give a true figure in any case. If real number of daily new infections is estimated to be around 50, 000 and more, as pronounced by Whittey (?) then what is the point of the daily chart showing around 20, 000?

Their only value, imo, is to assess trends, but they are nevertheless used by the powers that be to impose lockdowns  in various areas despite local objectors claiming that things are improving, not worsening. It's all over the place.

I am also wary of experts. The about turns re: herd immunity, the contradictions over masks, the  disputes over the distancing of social distancing and the length of the quarantine period etc. Amazingly, I read it stated by one expert that our failure to attend to our borders more stringently at the outset has made little difference in the spread of the virus in the UK. Having waltzed through Heathrow, accompanied by a dozen Chinese on my Eva air flight in mid-February, without so much as a temperature check, I consider this view to be nonsense.  

Today we have a survey revealing that immunity might be shorter lived than expected. Tomorrow this might well be contradicted; besides the claim stated that other forces in the body than the immune system might repel the disease in any case.

I realise that Covid 19 is a new and mysterious phenomena providing contradictions worldwide. but this doesn't stop  the pontificating pundits from dishing out their informed advice. It's become an industry. We suffer from a lack of expertise, but no shortage of experts.

Meanwhile the scientists at Oxford carry on steadfastly with their research and their trials. These, and those in the front line of the NHS, are the real heroes, not the army of pundits that is constantly in our faces or the likes of Dr. Whatsit on ITV each morning 

 

 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of you who keep saying, herd immunity doesn't work, could you please explain how vaccinations work?

Also if antibodies don't last how do you create a vaccine.

THIS IS THE POINT

0.23% OVERALL DEATHS

0.05 % DEATHS UNDER 70

you cannot hide from a virus and you cannot eradicate it, it will naturally become endemic.

Those of you who think New Zealand did a great job....you do realise they have put all their eggs in one basket so the reality is they have got no where.

Also the reality for New Zealand is COMPULSORY VACCINATION! are you happy about that?

 

Sweden got it right,

Well done Anders 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change your diet, no processed food

Cut back on carbs

Get fit

Go outside more

Vitamin d3 

Vitamin c

Zinc

Stop fearing and start living 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about all you RWNJs do a big herd immunity trial amongst yourselves. If it works, great. If it doesn't, well, no big loss. A win win in my book. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, horsefly said:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-herd-immunity-hopes-dashed-as-study-shows-covid-19-antibodies-fall-rapidly-after-recovery-12115510

This should be the final nail in the coffin of Prof Gupta's rash prognosis back in May that herd-immunity was already pretty much establshed and the virus was "on it's way out". 

I think there has been a suggestion for a while that there’d probably need to be regular jabs rather than a one off vaccine for the same reason. Interesting hypothesis in there that some people might have higher levels of antibodies because they are more regularly in contact with infected people. I suppose that makes sense. Again comes round full circle to the point that we need to weigh up making sure hospitals aren’t overwhelmed with not keeping restrictions in place that are too harsh or too long.  If shutting yourselves away for two months might make you more susceptible when you do come back out, then the lockdowns and restrictions should only go as far as is needed to stop hospitals being overwhelmed at any specific point.

Also interesting to see comments on seasonality of other related coronaviruses in the article, especially if we need regular jabs rather than a one off vaccine. If there is some seasonal element, do we treat it like a flu jab, or do we need to give regular jabs throughout the whole year? Of course, that’s also assuming we find a vaccine / jab that works - I seem to remember we never have done for any previous coronavirus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Herman said:

How about all you RWNJs do a big herd immunity trial amongst yourselves. If it works, great. If it doesn't, well, no big loss. A win win in my book. 

Not that I’m arguing with your point, Herman, but I’ve never understood why demanding lockdowns and removal of “civil liberties” is seen as left wing and keeping things open as right wing. I would have thought the opposite if anything. I don’t see it as a right or left wing thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I think there has been a suggestion for a while that there’d probably need to be regular jabs rather than a one off vaccine for the same reason. Interesting hypothesis in there that some people might have higher levels of antibodies because they are more regularly in contact with infected people. I suppose that makes sense. Again comes round full circle to the point that we need to weigh up making sure hospitals aren’t overwhelmed with not keeping restrictions in place that are too harsh or too long.  If shutting yourselves away for two months might make you more susceptible when you do come back out, then the lockdowns and restrictions should only go as far as is needed to stop hospitals being overwhelmed at any specific point.

Also interesting to see comments on seasonality of other related coronaviruses in the article, especially if we need regular jabs rather than a one off vaccine. If there is some seasonal element, do we treat it like a flu jab, or do we need to give regular jabs throughout the whole year? Of course, that’s also assuming we find a vaccine / jab that works - I seem to remember we never have done for any previous coronavirus?

Yep! Hopefully all efforts can concentrate on those issues now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, Bagster said:

 

Also the reality for New Zealand is COMPULSORY VACCINATION! are you happy about that?

 

They’re forcing people to get vaccinated against covid? Where is that reported?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bagster said:

Those of you who keep saying, herd immunity doesn't work, could you please explain how vaccinations work?

Also if antibodies don't last how do you create a vaccine.

THIS IS THE POINT

0.23% OVERALL DEATHS

0.05 % DEATHS UNDER 70

you cannot hide from a virus and you cannot eradicate it, it will naturally become endemic.

Those of you who think New Zealand did a great job....you do realise they have put all their eggs in one basket so the reality is they have got no where.

Also the reality for New Zealand is COMPULSORY VACCINATION! are you happy about that?

 

Sweden got it right,

Well done Anders 

Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between relying on a vaccine and relying on natural herd-immunity? The latest report I just provided a link for demonstrates that natural herd-immunity is a non-starter. It does not in the slightest imply that (repeated) vaccines won't work.

 

And just to clarify the difference: A vaccine is designed to stimulate the growth of antibodies to a virus whilst ensuring the individual doesn't go on to develop the symptoms of that virus (ideally and usually none of those symptoms). Herd-immunity relies on people catching the virus and hopefully developing enough antibody resistence to overcome the symptoms of the virus. It does NOT protect you from developing those symptoms in the first instance. The difference couldn't be more stark.

Edited by horsefly
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, horsefly said:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-herd-immunity-hopes-dashed-as-study-shows-covid-19-antibodies-fall-rapidly-after-recovery-12115510

This should be the final nail in the coffin of Prof Gupta's rash prognosis back in May that herd-immunity was already pretty much establshed and the virus was "on it's way out". 

 

I tend it agree but nothing is ever certain.

Oddly I was back late last night and was going to answer some of the 'conspiracy' or odd ball theorists last night but couldn't be bothered - pointing out that already some people where getting reinfected, clusters like at Cranswick Country Foods (140 out of 300 so far test positive) would all tend NOT to support any thoughts of 'herd' or 'otherwise significant current immunity however acquired

This report then comes up which really does rather throw a bucket of much needed ice cold water on such claims. Wishful thinking indeed.

As to the vaccines - and there are many of them (200 ?) they are based on variety of underlying constructs (form 'dead' CV to fully engineered others' or other live viruses and while some my indeed suffer the same forgetfulness it's far from certain all will. That's my wishful thinking !

Yes Gupta, Levitt let alone their gullible followers should metaphorically put a sock in it at present in public (proper scientific debate OK) until they have some hard data and not belittle the issues needlessly risking people's lives on a theory that doesn't seem to hold up.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Herman said:

How about all you RWNJs do a big herd immunity trial amongst yourselves. If it works, great. If it doesn't, well, no big loss. A win win in my book. 

I was hoping that TFL would have a tube carriage for people who don’t wish to wear masks, a bit like the old smokers carriages. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-herd-immunity-hopes-dashed-as-study-shows-covid-19-antibodies-fall-rapidly-after-recovery-12115510

This should be the final nail in the coffin of Prof Gupta's rash prognosis back in May that herd-immunity was already pretty much establshed and the virus was "on it's way out". 

Actually it isn't.   She said that antibodies in serum (ie circulating in blood) were only one marker of immunity and that there could be other, dark matter, causes of immunity (t cells and IgA antibodies in the respiratory tract possibly).  

It was this dark matter immunity and rhe persistence of memory that we should be looking at, not fleeting serum levels.

In not saying that she is right and nor am I presenting a hypothesis but she is not wrong because you want her to be wrong

 

Edited by Barbe bleu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Actually it isn't.   She said that antibodies in serum (ie circulating in blood) were only one marker of immunity and that there could be other, dark matter, causes of immunity (t cells and IgA antibodies in the respiratory tract possibly).  

It was this dark matter immunity and rhe persistence of memory that we should be looking at, not fleeting serum levels.

In not saying that she is right and nor am I presenting a hypothesis but she is not wrong because you want her to be wrong

 

Here's the BBc one - it does tend to answer that query.  As noted nothing is ever certain but it just makes 'herd immunity'  ploys even more unlikely as solution let alone a 'policy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54696873

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...