Coronavirus

[Pureblood]

Just now, Mudface said:

Didn't that figure come from a mathematical modeller, not the Imperial epidemiologist team?

It came from Prof Tom Pike who works for Imperial College London. 

[Mudface]

1 minute ago, TK421 said:

It came from Prof Tom Pike who works for Imperial College London. 

As an engineering professor, so presumably not a part of the team advising the government. He's also since said that his prediction was wrong as it was based on the UK following the same trajectory as in Wuhan- https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/expert-who-said-uk-death-21777553 - and it clearly isn't.

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, Mudface said:

As an engineering professor, so presumably not a part of the team advising the government. He's also since said that his prediction was wrong as it was based on the UK following the same trajectory as in Wuhan- https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/expert-who-said-uk-death-21777553 - and it clearly isn't.

He's a cunt who was proven wrong in less than 48 hours and his institution clearly can't be trusted.  They shouldn't be allowed near the government as far as I'm concerned. 

[Scooby Dudek]

5 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

People try to put us down. 

Who're you talking about ?

[Pidge]

1 minute ago, TK421 said:

 

Prof Ferguson talks about the epidemic plateauing in 7-10 days, setting the mood for relaxing the rules on social isolation.  But he presents no evidence for this and, coming from the same institution that predicted 5,700 deaths in total, I simply do not trust a word he says nor those of his colleagues.  

 

Prof Medley openly talks about allowing people to contract coronavirus.  That's completely unacceptable to me, your threshold appears to be different. 

The evidence for that would surely be the understanding of the incubation period and the fact that a strong lockdown would have been in place for longer than that period. We are still at the point where previously widespread exposure is resulting in new cases, the whole idea of lockdown is to see that out, limiting the spike in cases.

 

Ferguson in his paper (16/03) "We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time." However, even that paper speaks about how it's a short-term strategy and may need to be mixed with longer-term mitigation (narrower isolation and distancing). Regardless, at that time he was delivering a clear statement in favour of the lockdown.

 

Also, Imperial did not publish the Pike/Saina study and the purpose of that paper was not to "predict" anything, it was to put together evidence FOR effective social distancing by illustrating the potential impact it could have here based on successful deployment elsewhere, while providing a method for further modelling.

 

"Prof Medley openly talks about allowing people to contract coronavirus." Which quote are you referring to?

[SasaS]

Exit strategy is crucial, the sooner you start seriously planning the better. It's really not that hard to declare martial law and state of emergency and put everyone on absolute, total lockdown for 28 days, enforced by the police and the military.

And what do you do on day 29?

[Pureblood]

37 minutes ago, Pidge said:

 

 

Also, Imperial did not publish the Pike/Saina study and the purpose of that paper was not to "predict" anything, it was to put together evidence FOR effective social distancing by illustrating the potential impact it could have here based on successful deployment elsewhere, while providing a method for further modelling.

 

"Prof Medley openly talks about allowing people to contract coronavirus." Which quote are you referring to?

You talk about evidence but Prof Ferguson presents no new evidence to back up his spurious claim that infections will plateau in "7-10 days".  Sorry, but he has to do better than that as I'm not prepared to accept his word as opposed to hard scientific data.

 

Regarding your third paragraph, all that tells me is that Prof Tom Pike's department is as unreliable as the epidemiology department.  I remember having the chat with you about a week ago where I, as a lay person, pointed out that Pike's 5,700 prediction was clearly wrong.  Guess what, it was.

 

There's no direct quote but I'm happy to take Sky News for their word on this point:-

 

He told the newspaper Britain must consider allowing people to catch the virus in the least deadly way possible rather than allowing the impact on the economy, people's mental health, and harms in terms of domestic violence, child abuse and food poverty to continue indefinitely.

 

[cochyn]

30 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Exit strategy is crucial, the sooner you start seriously planning the better. It's really not that hard to declare martial law and state of emergency and put everyone on absolute, total lockdown for 28 days, enforced by the police and the military.

And what do you do on day 29?

Total lockdown just isn't feasible. Essential services will still need to operate therefore there will still be (albeit a much reduced) rate of transmission confined to these workers. You'd effectively have to divide all essential work during this lockdown into a minimum of three shift patterns. With each shift isolated from the other and all their kit being disinfected between alternate shifts. Or you only employ those who've recovered from and thus have immunity to the virus. 

 

I'm sure 28 days of martial law is unprecedented worldwide.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Over 600 dead in one day in new york alone!

[Captain Howdy]

i don’t think the horrific consequences of long term lockdown can be overstated, I’m fucked if I know what the answer is.

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

i don’t think the horrific consequences of long term lockdown can be overstated, I’m fucked if I know what the answer is.

Careful planning when it comes to relaxing the isolation rules based on hard evidence.  I don't have a problem with that, as a general principle, but Imperial College London haven't presented any such evidence. 

 

The other thing we can do is extensive testing, but we aren't doing that either. 

 

Our government's strategy is akin to a game of pin the tail on the donkey.  

[3 Stacks]

10 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

i don’t think the horrific consequences of long term lockdown can be overstated, I’m fucked if I know what the answer is.

You either contact trace like South Korea with the use of population surveillance and cell data, or you lock down until the cases really slow down. It's actually pretty simple, right now there are only two solutions. 

 

And then the universal strategy in addition to that should be to mass test. 

[cochyn]

15 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Careful planning when it comes to relaxing the isolation rules based on hard evidence.  I don't have a problem with that, as a general principle, but Imperial College London haven't presented any such evidence. 

 

The other thing we can do is extensive testing, but we aren't doing that either. 

 

Our government's strategy is akin to a game of pin the tail on the donkey.  

I think the government's 'strategy' is merely to try whatever half-baked plan is de rigeur at the moment to limit numbers. It's the only metric modern politicians understand: "Record unemplyment"! = Decline in well-paid secure employment for many and a massive rise in unsecure, minimum wage zero-hour contracts".

 

Similarly with covid 19, they're hoping for measurable reduction in cases to justify the reactionary measures they've put in place. They're just holding the tiller in the hope of steering us out of danger. Whereas, I think - and I hope i'm wrong- that they're just blindly grasping at the paltry measures available to them after years if austerity and a total disregard of peer-reviewed research and relying on 'expert' opinion.  

 

They're placing the faith of the nation in the likes of ICL whose modelling is (understandably) inaccurate and who have no competence in strategising in response to their own data. It's not to criticise ICL, I just don't think there's a coherent plan arising out of the data available. No peer review or cross-referencing of data sets to identify and adequately protect the vulnerable and act in a surgical, targeted way. 

 

 

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, cochyn said:

I think the government's 'strategy' is merely to try whatever half-baked plan is de rigeur at the moment to limit numbers. It's the only metric modern politicians understand: "Record unemplyment"! = Decline in well-paid secure employment for many and a massive rise in unsecure, minimum wage zero-hour contracts". Similarly with covid 19, they're hoping for measurable reduction in cases to justify the reactionary measures they've put in place. They're just holding the tiller in the hope of steering us out of danger. Whereas, I think - and I hope i'm wrong- that they're just blindly grasping at the paltry measures available to them after years if austerity and a total disregard of peer-reviewed research and relying on 'expert' opinion.  

I basically agree with you.  My own conclusion is that the government and our society as a whole in this country is incapable of handling the challenges that coronavirus brings.  Disregarding party politics, I just don't think we're in a position to be able to deal with it with any degree of success.  

[Pidge]

35 minutes ago, TK421 said:

You talk about evidence but Prof Ferguson presents no new evidence to back up his spurious claim that infections will plateau in "7-10 days".  Sorry, but he has to do better than that as I'm not prepared to accept his word as opposed to hard scientific data.  

"Such an intensive policy is predicted to result in a reduction in critical care requirements from a peak approximately 3 weeks after the interventions are introduced and a decline thereafter while the intervention policies remain in place."

 

Again from the 16/03 paper. So it's not a new claim (in fact, it's barely a claim at all, he says he's "hopeful" of it and it would be dependent on people observing the measures) and the basis is well-documented. You don't have to agree with that, but it's not spurious, or baseless. 

Quote

 

Regarding your second paragraph, all that tells me is that Prof Tom Pike's department is as unreliable as the epidemiology department.  I remember having the chat with you about a week ago where I, as a lay person, pointed out that Pike's 5,700 prediction was clearly wrong.  Guess what, it was.

 

No it wasn't. It was the answer to a mathematical equation based on trends which they clearly explained, as I said then. Put the same data through the process and that would still be the answer, so not wrong at all. Your insistence that it was intended as a real-world prediction doesn't make it so, it never was. At the time you were kicking off because Vine mentioned that the results change daily (as more data becomes available and the trends put through the model are updated), now you're patting yourself on the back about it. That's not good judgement on your part, they literally told you themselves.

 

Quote

 

 

There's no direct quote but I'm happy to take Sky News for their word on this point:-

  

He told the newspaper Britain must consider allowing people to catch the virus in the least deadly way possible rather than allowing the impact on the economy, people's mental health, and harms in terms of domestic violence, child abuse and food poverty to continue indefinitely.

 

 

So, no need for evidence when it comes to journalists... JOURNALISTS... despite them selecting quotes for the article they didn't select one that backs up the main thrust of the story. Okay.

 

22 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Careful planning when it comes to relaxing the isolation rules based on hard evidence.  I don't have a problem with that, as a general principle, but Imperial College London haven't presented any such evidence. 

Nor have we relaxed social distancing. The timeframe specifically mentioned (end of May) is well-beyond the 7-10 day window. Trends will need to be clearly observed before decisions are made, he isn't saying otherwise.

[SasaS]

36 minutes ago, cochyn said:

Total lockdown just isn't feasible. Essential services will still need to operate therefore there will still be (albeit a much reduced) rate of transmission confined to these workers. You'd effectively have to divide all essential work during this lockdown into a minimum of three shift patterns. With each shift isolated from the other and all their kit being disinfected between alternate shifts. Or you only employ those who've recovered from and thus have immunity to the virus. 

 

I'm sure 28 days of martial law is unprecedented worldwide.

That was not my point.

[cochyn]

1 minute ago, TK421 said:

I basically agree with you.  My own conclusion is that the government and our society as a whole in this country is incapable of handling the challenges that coronavirus brings.  Disregarding party politics, I just don't think we're in a position to be able to deal with it with any degree of success.  

If we put aside society for a moment. I think the government are in 'oh shit'! mode. The measures put in place are entirely reactionary and will I think ultimately fail to meet expectations. I really hope not.

 

As for the people - we're all naturally scared, fearful and now we have paranoia and isolationism to add to that. You can only counter the first two by stating the facts as they stand. The gov's nightly broadcasts are a fucking travesty - empty platitudes, waffle and little to no communication of reliable scientific evidence or discussion on the strategies available. They're rhetoricising (?) rather than adequately and responsibly informing us.

 

They're locking us up and treating us like imbeciles because  they think that will placate us. The media, I'm disappointed with like I never thought possible. 

[Pureblood]

4 minutes ago, Pidge said:

"Such an intensive policy is predicted to result in a reduction in critical care requirements from a peak approximately 3 weeks after the interventions are introduced and a decline thereafter while the intervention policies remain in place."

 

Again from the 16/03 paper. So it's not a new claim (in fact, it's barely a claim at all, he says he's "hopeful" of it and it would be dependent on people observing the measures) and the basis is well-documented. You don't have to agree with that, but it's not spurious, or baseless. 

 

 

No it wasn't. It was the answer to a mathematical equation based on trends which they clearly explained, as I said then. Put the same data through the process and that would still be the answer, so not wrong at all. Your insistence that it was intended as a real-world prediction doesn't make it so, it never was. At the time you were kicking off because Vine mentioned that the results change daily (as more data becomes available and the trends put through the model are updated), now you're patting yourself on the back about it. That's not good judgement on your part, they literally told you themselves.

 

 

 

 

So, no need for evidence when it comes to journalists... JOURNALISTS... despite them selecting quotes for the article they didn't select one that backs up the main thrust of the story. Okay.

 

Nor have we relaxed social distancing.

Okay, here's the Independent with a direct quote. I suppose they're making it up, too?

 

He argued that the UK may still have to reconsider the herd immunity strategy to “allow people to catch the virus in the least deadly way possible”, the newspaper claimed.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-herd-immunity-lockdown-boris-johnson-graham-medley-a9447021.html

[SasaS]

In the meantime, Italy has its first reduction in the number of people in ICU, from 4,068 to 3,996, a further sign that they are slowly on the mend, if they can prevent new hotspots flaring up. 

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

635 new deaths in just New York in past 24 hours.

 

 

[Pidge]

7 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Okay, here's the Independent with a direct quote. I suppose they're making it up, too?

 

He argued that the UK may still have to reconsider the herd immunity strategy to “allow people to catch the virus in the least deadly way possible”, the newspaper claimed.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-herd-immunity-lockdown-boris-johnson-graham-medley-a9447021.html

Thank you.

[Barrington Womble]

41 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Our government's strategy is akin to a game of pin the tail on the donkey.  

Is that not how this government have done pretty much everything since they came to power 10 years ago? This is the government that awarded shipping contracts to a company without ships FFS. There's a catalogue of incompetence throughout government since these cunts have come to power, both in terms of strategy and BAU. We've got Brexit round the corner and regardless of what anyone thinks of that, the leading people on both sides of the argument have held prime minister and other cabinet roles under this government and neither side planned for the outcome that happened. The fact we've been hit with a pandemic and they don't quite know what to do, is hardly a surprise to me. I'd be shocked if they'd got it right. 

[Captain Turdseye]

1 hour ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Who're you talking about ?

Talking ‘bout some intubation. 

[Oh Buoy]

Back in stock, lads!

 

 

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Who're you talking about ?

Tommy.