Coronavirus

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Even better, you can work it out yourself.

 

Peak deaths was reached on April 8th.

Average time from infection to death is 23 days.

The UK went into lockdown on March 23rd.

 

Now using the above data, determine whether peak infection was before or after March 3rd. 

Where are you getting this from? If they know things like when they were infected and when they died, that would suggest that they knew how this virus was travelling. Either they knew (in which case they have fucked up even more than they are letting on) or they didn't know (which would make 'average' figures unreliable).

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Spy Bee said:

I said London. I'm not arguing the point of the whole country having reached peak. I'd suggest Northern Ireland and Scotland amongst other places, still haven't.

I'm talking about the UK. 

[Spy Bee]

Meanwhile, 3,000,000 people are waiting to be screened for cancer.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

So, you're saying lockdown didn't work?

Unfortunately it took time for the lockdown to take effect. Based on what I saw before lockdown and after, I would suggest it took 3-4 weeks for the numbers to stabilise and then drop.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Oh its deaths now. So you have changed your angle. So the peak day for deaths was after lockdown. Sam as the peak day for cases which is contrary to what you stated. 

 

No, I haven't changed anything.

 

Peak day for deaths was April 8th. Peak day for infections was obviously much earlier than this, because it takes quite a while for people to actually die from the virus.

[Bjornebye]

27 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

The numbers that were coming down before we even went into lockdown, you mean?

 

16 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

You do realise that people don't die instantly after catching the disease, right?

 

13 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Yep I am aware of that. Show me figures proving that cases went down before we went into lockdown in the UK. I'll wait. 

 

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have gone into lockdown? Are you suggesting that a virus doesn't transmit despite the absolute fact that it has transmitted from person to person otherwise it wouldn't exist? You are aware how  virus works right? 

 

12 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Even better, you can work it out yourself.

 

Peak deaths was reached on April 8th.

Average time from infection to death is 23 days.

The UK went into lockdown on March 23rd.

 

Now using the above data, determine whether peak infection was before or after March 23rd. 

So still no evidence then. 

 

Also I will ask again:

 

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have gone into lockdown? Are you suggesting that a virus doesn't transmit despite the absolute fact that it has transmitted from person to person otherwise it wouldn't exist? You are aware how  virus works right? 

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I said London. I'm not arguing the point of the whole country having reached peak. I'd suggest Northern Ireland and Scotland amongst other places, still haven't.

London is definitely on a different timeline. Lockdown officially took hold on March 23rd but the wheels were in motion before that, especially in London. Like I said before, the DVSA closed shop on Thursday, March 12th but it was obvious the Govt did not want a full lockdown as it would have cost them a fortune in money. Which it did. If they hadn't done it, we definitely would not be where we are now. No way.

 

Edit: thinking about how the Govt's DVSA dealt with this tells me they knew this was going to turn to shit but did not want to admit it to the public. The DVSA wanted to protect their staff but didn't give a flying fuck about instructors or more importantly the students. Writing that has filled me with a certain amount of disgust when there was already alot there for this shit-riddled Govt.

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

No, I haven't changed anything.

 

Peak day for deaths was April 8th. Peak day for infections was obviously much earlier than this, because it takes quite a while for people to actually die from the virus.

It wasn't. Like I said (and it is very relevant) not everybody infected dies from this. 

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Fluter in Dakota said:

Where are you getting this from? If they know things like when they were infected and when they died, that would suggest that they knew how this virus was travelling. Either they knew (in which case they have fucked up even more than they are letting on) or they didn't know (which would make 'average' figures unreliable).

 

Modelling by Simon Wood at Bristol University.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

 

What the results show is that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before full lockdown

[Bjornebye]

Still no evidence then. 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

So still no evidence then. 

 

Ironic, since I'm the only person actually providing any.

 

You already know my feelings about lockdown, so I don't know why you're asking me the same question over and over again.

 

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It wasn't. Like I said (and it is very relevant) not everybody infected dies from this. 

 

So relevant you don't seem to be able to explain why.

 

It's quite simple. Number of deaths is a function of number of infections, so the peak of deaths is obviously going to occur X number of days after the peak of infections.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Modelling by Simon Wood at Bristol University.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

 

What the results show is that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before full lockdown

Theory rather than evidence. Better than nothing, but not by a huge amount.

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Modelling by Simon Wood at Bristol University.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

 

What the results show is that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before full lockdown

 

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Still no evidence then. 

 

Absolutely astonishing.

 

Like talking to a brick wall.

[Strontium]

Just now, Fluter in Dakota said:

Theory rather than evidence. Better than nothing, but not by a huge amount.

 

If you have anything better, feel free to provide it.

 

I'll wait.

[Guest]

Just now, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

If you have anything better, feel free to provide it.

 

I'll wait.

I'm not the one claiming I have any evidence to backup my claims. I have already stated what happened from my own perspective rather than from someone else's and I have no evidence other than my own words to back that up.

 

I'm not going to pretend that someone else's theory is in anyway going to make a stronger case for it.

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Ironic, since I'm the only person actually providing any.

 

You already know my feelings about lockdown, so I don't know why you're asking me the same question over and over again.

 

 

So relevant you don't seem to be able to explain why.

 

It's quite simple. Number of deaths is a function of number of infections, so the peak of deaths is obviously going to occur X number of days after the peak of infections.

 

2 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

 

Absolutely astonishing.

 

Like talking to a brick wall.

I've provided evidence that the peak day for deaths and the peak day for admitted cases to hospital occurred after lockdown. Why you conveniently choose to ignore them only you know. 

 

As for not everyone dying. 50 people could be infected on day 1 and 40 die by day 23. 100 people could have been infected on day 2 but only 20 of them die from the virus by day 24. 

 

Posting opinions and peoples twitter feeds means fuck all. You said cases were coming down after lockdown. That is factually incorrect and you have provided zero evidence backing up your statement. 

 

Your views on lockdown are as pathetic as you. 

 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Fluter in Dakota said:

I'm not the one claiming I have any evidence to backup my claims. I have already stated what happened from my own perspective rather than from someone else's and I have no evidence other than my own words to back that up.

 

I'm not going to pretend that someone else's theory is in anyway going to make a stronger case for it.

Same fella fucked off when his Japan theory was shown up the avoided further discussion instead of just saying "yeah silly comparison". Pure narcissism. 

 

I don't know why I bother with the bullshitting troll. 

[Strontium]

7 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I've provided evidence that the peak day for deaths and the peak day for admitted cases to hospital occurred after lockdown. Why you conveniently choose to ignore them only you know.

 

In what way am I ignoring that the peak for deaths occurred after lockdown? It's key to my argument.

 

Quote

As for not everyone dying. 50 people could be infected on day 1 and 40 die by day 23. 100 people could have been infected on day 2 but only 20 of them die from the virus by day 24.

 

Seems a bit far fetched that mortality rates would swing so drastically in such a short period of time. Do you have any evidence that this is what has happened? Pretty sure I know the answer, like.

 

Surely to goodness you can agree on two things at least:

 

1) The peak for deaths was April 8th

2) These people must have been infected prior to April 8th

 

So, the point of contention is when these people were infected.

 

I have provided data modelling which shows they were infected prior to lockdown.

 

I presume you therefore have something which leads you to believe they were infected after lockdown?

[Guest]

Actually, thinking about it I have already given my evidence. A Govt Agency saw fit to stop fulfilling any and all driving tests throughout the UK more than a full week before the actual lockdown.

 

I present therefore to the court the email sent (for clarity I was actually wrong on the date, it was March 19th the first test cancellation):

 

Driving test centres close for 2 days

Due to the unfolding COVID-19 situation, testing for tomorrow Thursday 19 March has been postponed. Tests will be cancelled for the next 2 days. This includes: car driving tests motorcycle tests ADI tests lorry, coach and bus driving tests Further guidance will be issued in due course. We will get in touch with everyone with a test booked during this time to let them know if their test has been cancelled and we will automatically re-book for them. Out of pocket expenses Because we’ve had to cancel tests at short notice, you and your pupils will be able to claim out-of-pocket expenses. We will be monitoring the emerging situation and we will let you know if we need to cancel any more tests.

 

 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

In what way am I ignoring that the peak for deaths occurred after lockdown? It's key to my argument.

 

 

Seems a bit far fetched that mortality rates would swing so drastically in such a short period of time. Do you have any evidence that this is what has happened? Pretty sure I know the answer, like.

 

Surely to goodness you can agree on two things at least:

 

1) The peak for deaths was April 8th

2) These people must have been infected prior to April 8th

 

So, the point of contention is when these people were infected.

 

I have provided data modelling which shows they were infected prior to lockdown.

 

I presume you therefore have something which leads you to believe they were infected after lockdown?

For someone who claims to be half clever you are either pig ignorant or fucking stupid.

 

This was your original statement "The numbers that were coming down before we even went into lockdown, you mean?"

 

Just because those who died on April the 8th will potentially have been infected before lockdown that doesn't mean that the peak day for infections was before lockdown. You know this. You have provided zero evidence to back your original claim up. You wont either, because you cant. Because there isn't any. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

In what way am I ignoring that the peak for deaths occurred after lockdown? It's key to my argument.

 

 

 

 

Seems a bit far fetched that mortality rates would swing so drastically in such a short period of time. Do you have any evidence that this is what has happened? Pretty sure i know the answer, like.

 

Surely to goodness you can agree on two things at least:

 

1) The peak for deaths was April 8th

2) These people must have been infected prior to April 8th

 

So, the point of contention is when these people were infected.

 

I have provided data modelling which shows they were infected prior to lockdown.

 

I presume you therefore have something which leads you to believe they were infected after lockdown?

Fact check - the highest date that I can see is April 21st. Over 1100 deaths in 24 hours.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

For someone who claims to be half clever you are either pig ignorant or fucking stupid.

 

This was your original statement "The numbers that were coming down before we even went into lockdown, you mean?"

 

Just because those who died on April the 8th will potentially have been infected before lockdown that doesn't mean that the peak day for infections was before lockdown. You know this. You have provided zero evidence to back your original claim up. You wont either, because you cant. Because there isn't any. 

 

Haha what.

 

If it takes X number of days on average for someone to die from coronavirus, then it stands to reason that, on average, the people dying on April 8th were infected X number of days before April 8th.

 

If you want to deny something as self-evident as that, then no amount of information anyone provides will change your mind.

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Fluter in Dakota said:

Fact check - the highest date that I can see is April 21st. Over 1100 deaths in 24 hours.

 

What's your source for that?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

What's your source for that?

https://coronavstats.co.uk/uk

 

April 8th I beleive just over 1000. At least 3 more times in April it was over 1000, 21st was around 1124 I believe. Certainly higher than April 8th.

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Haha what.

 

If it takes X number of days on average for someone to die from coronavirus, then it stands to reason that, on average, the people dying on April 8th were infected X number of days before April 8th.

 

If you want to deny something as self-evident as that, then no amount of information anyone provides will change your mind.

Like I've said, you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim. None. Nada. You fucking imbecile.