Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[johnhemming]

Well, all the data is there if you want to see for yourself.

I spend some time looking at the figures in England, but finding statistically reliable figures is quite time consuming hence I am not inclined to do a similar amount of work for other areas. As you said it will be a source of data for people to do dissertations in the figure.

My expectation is to see a trend towards a certain IFR figure for each area which will be partially demographically based. If this does not get most of the way there through the first wave then it will get there particularly in an autumn/winter wave.

What will be curious is the potential contest between vaccination and a seasonal wave in New Zealand and Australia in mid 2021. I cannot predict how that will end up. I suppose we will see the start of it in February/March.

Those appear to be countries where infection has been held back by state action quite strongly. Hence they are vulnerable to a serious autumn/winter seasonal wave.

[XFool]

I don't think there is a disagreement about the virus being seasonal. I would say the front runner for the seasonality mechanism links to relative humidity. We should be able to agree that we are seeing a seasonal wave throughout the northern hemisphere as the virus gets more virulent.

?

Also, would it be fair to conclude the correct answer to the conundrum: "When is a second wave not a second wave?"
is: "When it is a seasonal wave"?

Sorry!

[johnhemming]

I don't think there is a disagreement about the virus being seasonal. I would say the front runner for the seasonality mechanism links to relative humidity. We should be able to agree that we are seeing a seasonal wave throughout the northern hemisphere as the virus gets more virulent.

?

Also, would it be fair to conclude the correct answer to the conundrum: "When is a second wave not a second wave?"
is: "When it is a seasonal wave"?

I think ANZ could have a third wave which is seasonal.

[servodude]

infection has been held back by state action quite strongly

Given you continually spout stuff about lockdowns having no effect...
By what mechanism can something simultaneously affect the spread of the infection and also not affect the spread of the infection?

-sd

[johnhemming]

infection has been held back by state action quite strongly

Given you continually spout stuff about lockdowns having no effect...
By what mechanism can something simultaneously affect the spread of the infection and also not affect the spread of the infection?

Why do you have to resort to misrepresenting my arguments?

[XFool]

I think ANZ could have a third wave which is seasonal.

OK, thanks.

I was more 'getting at' those 'alternative' explainerisers(!) who confidently told us in the Summer that it was "all over" and there would be "no second wave". At least some (there is one obvious one I have referenced) who are still saying it is all over and there is no pandemic.

There seem to me only two logical ways to go from there, in reconciling generally perceived reality and their version of reality:

1. It's a "plandemic". It's all being faked by governments. (Reasons are obscure, or not given)

2. It's all a terrible mistake by science/government. "They are ALL wrong; I am right." (Shades of climate change debate!)

The person I usually reference prefers option 2.

[johnhemming]

I was more 'getting at' those 'alternative' explainerisers(!) who confidently told us in the Summer that it was "all over" and there would be "no second wave".

It may be the case that by a strict definition we are not now at epidemic levels. However, I have not checked this.

I personally expected a seasonal wave and warned for example the Birmingham Jazz Festival (in April or May) that moving to October ran the risk of being in the middle of a seasonal wave of Covid.

I accept entirely that some of the anti-lockdown crew really don't understand the science. However, that does not mean that there is not a valid argument to be averred.

[XFool]

It may be the case that by a strict definition we are not now at epidemic levels. However, I have not checked this.

Neither have I, but it is still out there, globally. Still causing cases - and rising cases as well - in more than one country. More than one country, even those who were previously considered successful, are now taking increasingly tough measures. In other word, being forced to take such measures. e.g Sweden

Then, as I said previously, the USA does not look to me like a case of: "Job done, it's all over bar the sweeping up."

I personally expected a seasonal wave and warned for example the Birmingham Jazz Festival (in April or May) that moving to October ran the risk of being in the middle of a seasonal wave of Covid.

Did they take notice?

I accept entirely that some of the anti-lockdown crew really don't understand the science. However, that does not mean that there is not a valid argument to be averred.

Indeed. I hope and would expect that argument is going on, in scientific, medical circles and other, and even feeding into the SAGE deliberations!
The trouble is, in the public domain, it seems to be polarising and becoming just another 'political' debate - like with climate change.


OT - If you are reading this it's a minor miracle, caused browser to exit while editing, restarted and here we are all as before!

[johnhemming]

I personally expected a seasonal wave and warned for example the Birmingham Jazz Festival (in April or May) that moving to October ran the risk of being in the middle of a seasonal wave of Covid.

Did they take notice?

I am on the committee so I am part of "they".

[Lootman]

I don't think there is a disagreement about the virus being seasonal. I would say the front runner for the seasonality mechanism links to relative humidity.

But what is the relationship between the virus and relative humidity?

Some respiratory diseases are worse with high humidity, such as asthma. But others correlate to low humidity e.g. bronchitis.

In the main a RH of between 40% and 60% is considered the healthiest.

[Nimrod103]

I don't think there is a disagreement about the virus being seasonal. I would say the front runner for the seasonality mechanism links to relative humidity.

But what is the relationship between the virus and relative humidity?

Some respiratory diseases are worse with high humidity, such as asthma. But others correlate to low humidity e.g. bronchitis.

In the main a RH of between 40% and 60% is considered the healthiest.

AIUI it has long been known that flu spreads much better in a dry atmosphere, because the exhaled droplets of moisture with the virus travel further, whereas in humid air the droplets tend to clump with others and fall to the ground. Everyone assumes this SARS virus to spread the same way.

[johnhemming]

I don't think there is a disagreement about the virus being seasonal. I would say the front runner for the seasonality mechanism links to relative humidity.

But what is the relationship between the virus and relative humidity?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 102503.htm

The airborne transmission of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 via aerosol particles in indoor environment seems to be strongly influenced by relative humidity, concludes the analysis of 10 most relevant international studies on the subject. Therefore, they recommend controlling the indoor air in addition to the usual measures such as social distancing and masks. A relative humidity of 40 to 60 percent could reduce the spread of the viruses and their absorption through the nasal mucous membrane.

The team concludes that other processes are more important for infection: "If the relative humidity of indoor air is below 40 percent, the particles emitted by infected people absorb less water, remain lighter, fly further through the room and are more likely to be inhaled by healthy people. In addition, dry air also makes the mucous membranes in our noses dry and more permeable to viruses," summarizes Dr. Ajit Ahlawat.

[XFool]

Now here's what I like to call an interesting article!

We need scientists to quiz Covid consensus, not act as agents of disinformation

The Guardian

It’s essential for the status quo to be challenged. But those who claim to be bold outliers need to draw on evidence, not cry censorship

"But the most puzzling motivation in the disinformation ecosystem are of the scientists who get caught up in it."

"So it was perturbing to see Carl Heneghan, a professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford, claim in a Spectator piece he co-wrote last week: “Now we have properly rigorous scientific research that we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.” He makes two serious scientific errors in his piece, which is based on a misrepresentation of a Danish randomised-control trial."

[swill453]

Devi Sridhar, Professor & Chair of Global Public Health, Edinburgh Uni Med School, has tweeted she's "working on a new paper on herd (population) immunity thresholds". Should be of interest, but I don't know how long it takes for these things to be published.

Scott.

[swill453]

The inverse vaccine rule - Dickheads should get it first. Dickheads who don't believe any of it is real - as they're more likely to be spreading it.



Scott.

[johnhemming]

It is also evident in Heneghan’s claims that labelling his disinformation as such is an intrusion on academic freedom and in the way he portrays himself as some sort of science crusader in demanding expensive randomised trials on masks.

Is labelling anyone's papers
a) As "disinformation" - as the journalist does and
b) As "disinformation" by an online platform

really not an intrusion on academic freedom.

Secondly given the costs and implications of all the various things is is not sensible to spend some cash to find out whether the things actually make a difference.

[XFool]

It is also evident in Heneghan’s claims that labelling his disinformation as such is an intrusion on academic freedom and in the way he portrays himself as some sort of science crusader in demanding expensive randomised trials on masks.

Is labelling anyone's papers
a) As "disinformation" - as the journalist does and
b) As "disinformation" by an online platform

really not an intrusion on academic freedom.

Of course it isn't! (What "papers"?)

Secondly given the costs and implications of all the various things is is not sensible to spend some cash to find out whether the things actually make a difference.

So do that... And, if you are a "Professor of Evidence Based Medicine", I think we have a right to expect you attend to the evidence and to attempt to convey it accurately to the public. Not to misrepresent it in an opinion piece in a political outlet.

And, if that is what you choose to do, you have NO right not to expect criticism in another public newspaper. That is NOT "an intrusion on academic freedom".

[johnhemming]

There is I think a distinction to be made between criticism which is not abusive and that which is.

[XFool]

There is I think a distinction to be made between criticism which is not abusive and that which is.

Since when is pointing out uncomfortable facts "abusive"?

How would you describe a professor of evidence based medicine presenting evidence to the public in a misleading manner?

[johnhemming]

It is the use of words such as disinformation. I am used to people being abusive in the way they argue with me. I find it sad when people are abusive on any side of an argument. I dont like the abusive way in which some of the lockdown sceptics argue their position.

There is, however, no doubt that abusive language is used in order to discourage people from making their point.

The word "disinformation" is in fact an abusive word. As such it militates against academic freedom.