Coronavirus

[Spy Bee]

29 minutes ago, TK421 said:

It would still be nearer 45,000 than 8,000 if 50% were infected. 

 

Many of those tests were weeks ago, since then people could have been infected and recovered.

 

The initial antibody tests which is due out soon, will only test if you have had it, not if you have some natural defence to it, which they believe some people do.

[clockspeed]

49 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Although I don’t believe it, that herd immunity stuff is interesting.

 

If true, it would begin to answer why our fatalities haven’t taken off the same way Italy or Spain have. Although there is still, obviously / unfortunately, plenty of time for that to change.

I can be quoted at later date our tsunami is yet to come nothing to do with herd immunity rather we just later to the covid party.

 

Yes herd immunity is a fascinating phenomenon. But its study has been on majority vaccinated populations and the effect on those unvaccinated residing in the same community/population. Unfortunately not proven for unvaccinated viruses in minority infected populations. 

 

They will now be pedaling the line X % of those who succumb tocovid 19 were going to die anyway in this pandemic timeframe so should be discounted from official figures.

 

Lot of good stuff on herd immunity and HPV vaccine online it's a good read

[Mudface]

A bit more about herd immunity here, and what a load of bollocks it is in unvaccinated populations- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings

 

Quote

 

The UK's coronavirus policy may sound scientific. It isn't


Dominic Cummings loves to theorise about complexity, but he’s getting it all wrong


Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Yaneer Bar-Yam

‘Herd immunity was nothing more than a dressed-up version of the ‘just do nothing’ approach.’ 
When, along with applied systems scientist Dr Joe Norman, we first reacted to coronavirus on 25 January with the publication of an academic note urging caution, the virus had infected fewer than 2,000 people worldwide and fewer than 60 people were dead. That number need not have been so high.

At the time of writing, the numbers are 351,000 and 15,000 respectively. Our research did not use any complicated model with a vast number of variables, no more than someone watching an avalanche heading in their direction calls for complicated statistical models to see if they need to get out of the way.
We called for a simple exercise of the precautionary principle in a domain where it mattered: interconnected complex systems have some attributes that allow some things to cascade out of control, delivering extreme outcomes.

Enact robust measures that would have been, at the time, of small cost: constrain mobility. Immediately. Later, we invoked a rapid investment in preparedness: tests, hospital capacity, means to treat patients. Just in case, you know. Things can happen.

The error in the UK is on two levels. Modelling and policymaking.

First, at the modelling level, the government relied at all stages on epidemiological models that were designed to show us roughly what happens when a preselected set of actions are made, and not what we should make happen, and how.

The modellers use hypotheses/assumptions, which they then feed into models, and use to draw conclusions and make policy recommendations. Critically, they do not produce an error rate. What if these assumptions are wrong? Have they been tested? The answer is often no. For academic papers, this is fine. Flawed theories can provoke discussion. Risk management – like wisdom – requires robustness in models.

But if we base our pandemic response plans on flawed academic models, people die. And they will.

This was the case with the disastrous “herd immunity” thesis. The idea behind herd immunity was that the outbreak would stop if enough people got sick and gained immunity. Once a critical mass of young people gained immunity, so the epidemiological modellers told us, vulnerable populations (old and sick people) would be protected. Of course, this idea was nothing more than a dressed-up version of the “just do nothing” approach.

Individuals and scientists around the world immediately pointed out the obvious flaws: there’s no way to ensure only young people get infected; you need 60-70% of the population to be infected and recover to have a shot at herd immunity, and there aren’t that many young and healthy people in the UK, or anywhere. Moreover, many young people have severe cases of the disease, overloading healthcare systems, and a not-so-small number of them die. It is not a free ride.

This doesn’t even include the possibility, already suspected in some cases, of reccurrence of the disease. Immunity may not even be reliable for this virus.

Worse, it did not take into account that the duration of hospitalisation can be lengthier than they think, or that one can incur a shortage of hospital beds.

Second, but more grave, is the policymaking. No 10 appears to be enamoured with “scientism” – things that have the cosmetic attributes of science but without its rigour. This manifests itself in the nudge group that engages in experimenting with UK citizens or applying methods from behavioural economics that fail to work outside the university – yet patronise citizens as an insult to their ancestral wisdom and risk-perception apparatus. Social science is in a “replication crisis”, where less than half the results replicate (under exact same conditions), less than a tenth can be taken seriously, and less than a hundredth translate into the real world.


So what is called “evidence-based” methods have a dire track record and are pretty much evidence-free. This scientism also manifests itself in Boris Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings’s love of complexity and complex systems (our speciality) which he appears to apply incorrectly. And letting a segment of the population die for the sake of the economy is a false dichotomy – aside from the moral repugnance of the idea.

As we said, when one deals with deep uncertainty, both governance and precaution require us to hedge for the worst. While risk-taking is a business that is left to individuals, collective safety and systemic risk are the business of the state. Failing that mandate of prudence by gambling with the lives of citizens is a professional wrongdoing that extends beyond academic mistake; it is a violation of the ethics of governing.

The obvious policy left now is a lockdown, with overactive testing and contact tracing: follow the evidence from China and South Korea rather than thousands of error-prone computer codes. So we have wasted weeks, and ones that matter with a multiplicative threat.

• Nassim Nicholas Taleb is distinguished professor of risk engineering at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering and author of The Black Swan. Yaneer Bar-Yam is president of the New England Complex System Institute

 

[Spy Bee]

We haven't kept pace with Italy though. This could be due to the make-up and demographics of their country.

 

The testing which has been done is on such a small amount of people it really doesn't represent anything. That of course also doesn't mean that this 50% already infected figure is correct, although I really hope it is, as the death rates are then considerably less than previously thought.

[cloggypop]

TK coming back to call Stronts a tit has moved the thread up another notch. 

[Pureblood]

6 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Many of those tests were weeks ago, since then people could have been infected and recovered.

 

The initial antibody tests which is due out soon, will only test if you have had it, not if you have some natural defence to it, which they believe some people do.

It would still be far higher than 8,000 if 50% had it. 

 

It's a dangerously irresponsible study from Oxford Uni, in my opinion. It lulls people into a false sense of security. 

[General Dryness]

48 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I don't usually post here because I hate everyone.  But this Oxford University study is very easy to debunk.  If 50% of the UK population had been infected you would expect this to show in the results on those that have already been tested.  As of yesterday approximately 90,000 people had been tested in the UK. If 50% were infected then you'd expect around 45,000 confirmed cases, but we're currently on about 8,000.  Oxford University are talking shit, in my opinion. 

Negged, just for the hell of it.

[alles ist gut]

7 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

TK coming back to call Stronts a tit has moved the thread up another notch. 

Tremendous move by the writers there, I would never have thought of it.

 

The cameo by ***** can come in the series finale.

Edited March 25, 2020 by alles ist gut
Good point by Dave

[Davelfc]

2 minutes ago, alles ist gut said:

Tremendous move by the writers there, I would never have thought of it.

 

The cameo by ***** can come in the series finale.

Put it in fucking spoiler quotes please

[General Dryness]

Just now, alles ist gut said:

Tremendous move by the writers there, I would never have thought of it.

 

The cameo by Simon can come in the series finale.

For me it's on a par with Blake showing up in the final episode of Blake's 7. 

 

I reckon Stronts would make quite a good Avon.

[Spy Bee]

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

It would still be far higher than 8,000 if 50% had it. 

 

It's a dangerously irresponsible study from Oxford Uni, in my opinion. It lulls people into a false sense of security. 

I think that if it could be debunked as easily as you have done it, it would never have seen the light of day to be honest. I haven't read it in it's full detail, but Oxford aren't renowned for just chucking any old shite out there are they?

[Guest]

TK421

 

Stronts

 

 

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

Share. Dispicable what some cunts are doing during these times.

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

 

[dockers_strike]

14 minutes ago, Mudface said:

A bit more about herd immunity here, and what a load of bollocks it is in unvaccinated populations- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings

 

The writer of that article obviously never went to 'measles' parties in the early 60s then.

 

Anyway, there's talk the National League wants to cancel this season through it's 3 divisions and clubs like Barrow will not be automatically promoted to League Two along with the play off winners.

 

Seems bizarre considering the NL was intent on playing games up to the other week.

[clockspeed]

13 minutes ago, TK421 said:

It would still be far higher than 8,000 if 50% had it. 

 

It's a dangerously irresponsible study from Oxford Uni, in my opinion. It lulls people into a false sense of security. 

Have to question the veracity and timing of this report/hypothesis . Cannot see how this helps other than to give credence to government policy and thought process. 

[Pureblood]

16 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I think that if it could be debunked as easily as you have done it, it would never have seen the light of day to be honest. I haven't read it in it's full detail, but Oxford aren't renowned for just chucking any old shite out there are they?

All it takes is a cursory glance at the numbers. 50% of 90,000 ain't 8,000. 

[Aventus]

10 minutes ago, 1892-LFCWasBorn said:

 

Fuck. 

 

Maybe now these cunts will take it seriously. 

[Spy Bee]

Prince Charles is isolating at Balmoral with Covid-19.
Prince Andrew is isolating at Windsor with Jennifer 14.

[Dr Nowt]

Prince Charles has very mild symptoms but met the criteria for the test?

 

Presumably said criteria had an asterisk which says “Unless you’re Prince Charles”.

[SasaS]

I don't get it. If half the population already had corona virus and recovered, wouldn't this be reflected in the number of deaths and those requiring hospitalization? Or it has only affected the non-vulnerable part of the population, which somehow managed to avoid all contact with the 20% of population over 65 and suffering from various medical conditions?

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, Elite said:

I'm fairly certain I have it. Started with a dry cough yesterday and high temperature today, been in bed all day don't have the energy to move. Or I've got the flu.

You better hope its not mate 

 

[Spy Bee]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I don't get it. If half the population already had corona virus and recovered, wouldn't this be reflected in the number of deaths and those requiring hospitalization? Or it has only affected the non-vulnerable part of the population, which somehow managed to avoid all contact with the 20% of population over 65 and suffering from various medical conditions?

Well, we have never known at any stage the number of people who have actually been infected by the virus. We don't know the number of people who have been exposed to it and not been infected. So far, pretty much all numbers are guessing games. IN South Korea where most testing has happened, they have the lowest death rate.

[clangers]

10 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

Prince Charles has very mild symptoms but met the criteria for the test?

 

Presumably said criteria have an asterisk which say “Unless you’re Prince Charles”.

Was thinking that myself, I bet he didn't have to wait 4 days for the result? Typical royal family, they just can't keep themselves out of the headlines. 

 

Peak district is packed with daytripper's interpreting their one exercise a day as getting in the car and driving 100 miles to the countryside. 

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

Tragic.