Coronavirus

[johnsusername]

Someone on Five Live just said the government has spent £200bn on Coronavirus so far. Can that be right??

 

Fucking hell. 

 

I assume they've got three quotes for every job and raised the appropriate purchase orders. 

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

37 minutes ago, Fluter in Dakota said:

Jumping from a box marked 'suggests' and 'may' based on a study of 1,000 people that hasn't been printed or peer reviewed to a box marked 'confirmed' is quite the leap of faith. 

 

As long as it confirms things you want it to, no scientific rigour is required.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

35 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

You wouldn't be saying that if it was bad news, you morbid fuck!

 

All of us experience confirmation bias to varying degrees. Just because he called yours out, doesn't mean he's wrong.

[Barrington Womble]

7 minutes ago, johnsusername said:

Someone on Five Live just said the government has spent £200bn on Coronavirus so far. Can that be right??

 

Fucking hell. 

 

I assume they've got three quotes for every job and raised the appropriate purchase orders. 

i don't see why not. the tracing programme alone had cost around 12bn a couple of months back. and that's likely just the tip of the iceberg. 

[Bruce Spanner]

4 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

i don't see why not. the tracing programme alone had cost around 12bn a couple of months back. and that's likely just the tip of the iceberg. 

£43b so far on ‘Moonshot’, of its predicted £100b budget.

 

I can’t wait for the R&D contracts for the original app to be found as I think this will be an almighty shitstorm.

[Barrington Womble]

16 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

£43b so far on ‘Moonshot’, of its predicted £100b budget.

 

I can’t wait for the R&D contracts for the original app to be found as I think this will be an almighty shitstorm.

fucking hell. i wish i was on that gravy train. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

You wouldn't be saying that if it was factual, you morbid fuck!

 

[johnsusername]

30 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

£43b so far on ‘Moonshot’, of its predicted £100b budget.

 

I can’t wait for the R&D contracts for the original app to be found as I think this will be an almighty shitstorm.

All the while the argument in the national media today is putting private V public sector workers against each other for a few quid here and there. It's fucking chump change compared to the money going out unchecked to the mates of MPs under the guise of emergency Covid needs. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Aw Geez said:

 

All of us experience confirmation bias to varying degrees. Just because he called yours out, doesn't mean he's wrong.

Even if it were true, which 25% of people are immune? Would they have a coloured bar appear above their head? Maybe they would have an extra heart appear on their left shoulder? 

 

Good news is tangible and can be utilised. If you have to guess which people benefit, how can this be good news for the other 75%?

 

I can't wait to get the vaccine. Assuming it makes myself and 95% of society immune to COVID-19 at least its easier to protect 5% than 75%.

 

Spy Bee continues on the quest to make good news out of anything. 

[Jenson]

19 hours ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/greatgameindia.com/portuguese-court-pcr-tests-unreliable/amp/

 

Not sure how true, this is but it’s interesting to see a court case (Granted not UK) ruling in the manner it has. 

If this is a quote from the actual ruling

 

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”

 

then the wording used is rather misleading based on the paper that the judgement is based on.

 

From my reading of the study it seems that a positive PCR test using a Ct threshold of 35 cycles gives a positive accompanying culture result rate of 3%. That does not equal a false positive in terms of whether a person has the virus or not, as PCR is far more sensitive than any culture assay. It is certainly true that a PCR result is more robust with lower cycle numbers but used with appropriate controls any "false positive" should be easily identified.

What the study says is that the higher the Ct value of a positive PCR test, the lower the probability that the person is contagious based on whether or not the virus can be cultured from the sample. This is a completely different parameter to what the PCR test does, which is to simply show that someone has live virus present at the time the swab was taken.

 

This part of the article is bullshit:

Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough

 

The genetic material of the coronavirus is RNA, which would certainly not be present if the virus is "long dead". If the PCR gives a positive result it's because live virus was present.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

26 minutes ago, Fluter in Dakota said:

Even if it were true, which 25% of people are immune? Would they have a coloured bar appear above their head? Maybe they would have an extra heart appear on their left shoulder? 

 

Good news is tangible and can be utilised. If you have to guess which people benefit, how can this be good news for the other 75%?

 

I can't wait to get the vaccine. Assuming it makes myself and 95% of society immune to COVID-19 at least its easier to protect 5% than 75%.

 

Spy Bee continues on the quest to make good news out of anything. 

 

In theory herd immunity will stop the virus circulating long before 95%, so if we can get 70%+ immune*, we will be protecting the other 30%

 

*Measles is about 95% require, Polio is about 80%. Not sure what Covid19 will be - https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19#:~:text='Herd immunity'%2C,exposing them to it.

[Sugar Ape]

7 minutes ago, Jenson said:

If this is a quote from the actual ruling

 

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”

 

then the wording used is rather misleading based on the paper that the judgement is based on.

 

From my reading of the study it seems that a positive PCR test using a Ct threshold of 35 cycles gives a positive accompanying culture result rate of 3%. That does not equal a false positive in terms of whether a person has the virus or not, as PCR is far more sensitive than any culture assay. It is certainly true that a PCR result is more robust with lower cycle numbers but used with appropriate controls any "false positive" should be easily identified.

What the study says is that the higher the Ct value of a positive PCR test, the lower the probability that the person is contagious based on whether or not the virus can be cultured from the sample. This is a completely different parameter to what the PCR test does, which is to simply show that someone has live virus present at the time the swab was taken.

 

This part of the article is bullshit:

Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough

 

The genetic material of the coronavirus is RNA, which would certainly not be present if the virus is "long dead". If the PCR gives a positive result it's because live virus was present.

It’s a conspiracy theory website mate so I wouldn’t pay much attention to it. Thanks for the info though, interesting. 
 

https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-how-one-particular-coronavirus-myth-went-viral/amp

[Spy Bee]

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID‐19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000).

 

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full?cookiesEnabled

[Gnasher]

Anyone struggling with what to buy SD for Christmas?

 

Right said Fred been all over the airwaves promoting their new anti lockdown song 'we are criminals'  taps nose...

 

 

 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID‐19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000).

 

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full?cookiesEnabled

The same report states that the benefits of hand washing in preventing the spread are modest. 

 

I don't think I'll bother washing my hands any more. Good news! 

[TheHowieLama]

I agree with Spysy - if cross immunity turns out to be true it would be good news.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

I agree with Spysy - if cross immunity turns out to be true it would be good news.

Bring the actual evidence and I'll agree too. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

On 18/11/2020 at 15:27, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I'd love to know what magic would be required for a piece of cloth to work as a barrier in one direction, but not the other.

The mask covers the mouth, meaning the source is entirely covered. The mask only covers the mouth, meaning only some of the target is covered. That’s why they don’t only wear masks in hospitals, but eye protection too. 
 

 

[TheHowieLama]

6 minutes ago, Fluter in Dakota said:

Bring the actual evidence and I'll agree too. 

Not sure there is actual evidence at this point, it is a theory.

Obviously there is alot of discovery going on about the virus on an almost daily basis.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Not sure there is actual evidence at this point, it is a theory.

Obviously there is alot of discovery going on about the virus on an almost daily basis.

But it's been confirmed. 

[Barrington Womble]

The Zoe number remain flat nationally, but they're very much going on the wrong direction in Liverpool. Double just a couple of days ago and up on this time last week. 

 

 

[Section_31]

Anyone been out on the roads much? They're fucking heaving, dunno where everyone is  going. Even around 7am when I'm dropping the Mrs off it looks like driving home for christmas. 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Section_31 said:

Anyone been out on the roads much? They're fucking heaving, dunno where everyone is  going. Even around 7am when I'm dropping the Mrs off it looks like driving home for christmas. 

You need to stop looking in your rea view mirror 

[Manny]

3 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Anyone been out on the roads much? They're fucking heaving, dunno where everyone is  going. Even around 7am when I'm dropping the Mrs off it looks like driving home for christmas. 

Take a look at the driver next to you. He’s probably thinking just the same.

[Jenson]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

The Zoe number remain flat nationally, but they're very much going on the wrong direction in Liverpool. Double just a couple of days ago and up on this time last week. 

 

 

 

This is Halton. Not sure the local data can be relied on too much. Up by about 1500 in a single day?