Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[dealtn]

I'm done.

Fair enough.

But you missed the point. I wasn't accusing him of having confirmation bias (nor claiming he didn't).

I realised that.

I challenged that you weren't perhaps acting in a manner consistent with confirmation bias in deciding not to read something that was at one end of the "spectrum" of views, and presumably not where you would place yourself.

As I said, in accepting my knowledge is incomplete, I am happy and prepared to read a diverse range of pieces on this subject. You claimed not to have read beyond the 16th word.

And that was far enough for my bias!

Further investigation confirmed my bias. AFAIAC.

Fair play, at least you are willing to admit to having a bias, and that in itself is rarer than it ought to be.

[swill453]

In some ways the often rather mindless faith expressed in "experts" here is less surprising with a demographic like TLF, with an emphasis on left-brained thinking.

I don't see much mindless faith. I just accept that someone with, say, a PhD in epidemiology will know more about epidemiology than me or, say Tim Martin of Wetherspoons.

And I'd give more credence to a consensus from a bunch of epidemiologists than to one outlier.

It's about probability.

Scott.

[johnhemming]

I think COVID-19 is more a matter of reality than simply "a major debate".

Not everything is simply a matter of politics, or "debates". A common, elementary mistake. In my inexpert opinion.

There is, however, a debate as to what the susceptibility of the UK is/was to Covid 19.

Do you have a view on this. Do you think it was 100% in January?

[Itsallaguess]

Moderator Message:
There's been a recent spate of political posts and bickering here in recent days, and I've gone back and deleted the ones on this 'No Politics' thread, and also any replies to them. I won't be sending PM's out because all those affected should clearly have known better, and are all aware of the correct place to debate politics on this site. Future posts on this thread related to politics will of course be subject to the same action, so I'd ask that posters please think more carefully about the 'No Politics' thread title when posting - Thanks - Itsallaguess

[XFool]

I think COVID-19 is more a matter of reality than simply "a major debate".

Not everything is simply a matter of politics, or "debates". A common, elementary mistake. In my inexpert opinion.

There is, however, a debate as to what the susceptibility of the UK is/was to Covid 19.

Do you have a view on this. Do you think it was 100% in January?

I haven't the slightest idea, having no expertise or knowledge on the matter.

The only things I know are that it was a novel virus, presumably therefore nobody had any previous exposure to it. So 100% seemed a pretty sensible starting assumption. Of course, in the nature of things, some people would prove more susceptible and others less so.

[dealtn]

I think COVID-19 is more a matter of reality than simply "a major debate".

Not everything is simply a matter of politics, or "debates". A common, elementary mistake. In my inexpert opinion.

There is, however, a debate as to what the susceptibility of the UK is/was to Covid 19.

Do you have a view on this. Do you think it was 100% in January?

I haven't the slightest idea, having no expertise or knowledge on the matter.

The only things I know are that it was a novel virus, presumably therefore nobody had any previous exposure to it. So 100% seemed a pretty sensible starting assumption. Of course, in the nature of things, some people would prove more susceptible and others less so.

It might be a start, but I wouldn't have stayed at that point for long. Some of that will come down to what the questions means, but for other viral infections not everybody that is exposed to it goes on to develop symptoms, or is able to pass it on. It would be intuitively odd for this particular viral infection to be different I would think. So it's only a small step from there to asking the question if it isn't 100% what is it?

It seems strange to me that such questioning isn't more prevalent, particularly given this is a novel virus, as you say, and the modelling of its effects on society, and the proposed response(s) to it, have such a bearing on society too.

[johnhemming]

I think COVID-19 is more a matter of reality than simply "a major debate".

Not everything is simply a matter of politics, or "debates". A common, elementary mistake. In my inexpert opinion.

There is, however, a debate as to what the susceptibility of the UK is/was to Covid 19.

Do you have a view on this. Do you think it was 100% in January?

I haven't the slightest idea, having no expertise or knowledge on the matter.

The only things I know are that it was a novel virus, presumably therefore nobody had any previous exposure to it. So 100% seemed a pretty sensible starting assumption. Of course, in the nature of things, some people would prove more susceptible and others less so.

The problem with this question is that the answer to it drives a lot of other decisions. In particular it indicates things like the total number of deaths we might see were nothing to be done about the virus.

If you start with a Susceptibility figure of 100% and it turns out to be 70% or 50% then the actions taken which are doing damage to people's lives are not as necessary. (that is before considering balancing issues)

Hence it warrants understanding this debate before you can take a view as to whether Sage are correct or not.

Alternatively you can just trust the government.

[GoSeigen]

I haven't the slightest idea, having no expertise or knowledge on the matter.

The only things I know are that it was a novel virus, presumably therefore nobody had any previous exposure to it. So 100% seemed a pretty sensible starting assumption. Of course, in the nature of things, some people would prove more susceptible and others less so.

You didn't read the article you're debating about. That's not a good look. The above is one of the two central points addressed by the author.

I'm usually a fan of XFool's musings but this episode is disappointing.

GS

[Mike4]

I have said that as the virus becomes more infectious the herd immunity threshold increases.

Hence one would expect further infections to occur.

I dont think anyone is arguing that the virus is not becoming more infectious. Exactly why there can be debate about, but it is seasonal.

Well it looks likely to me that the the virus infectivity has stayed much the same, but the behaviour of it's hosts has changed significantly cause the rise in infections.

It's hosts have:
1) Re-opened offices, shops and pubs
2) Sent a million or three children back to skool
3) Sent perhaps 1/2m students to live together in cramped halls of residence

And you hold that it is the virus that has changed!!

[johnhemming]

And you hold that it is the virus that has changed!!

I don't argue the virus has changed. I argue that it is a seasonal virus. That means it is more virulent during certain seasons. This may be because people turn on the central heating in their houses therefore resulting in a lower relative humidity which means the virus hangs around in the air for longer.

Given that most infection is in the home anything that increases the viral load will make infection more serious and more likely to happen.

We are not certain about the mechanism, but it is the case that coronaviruses are generally seasonal.

[swill453]

And you hold that it is the virus that has changed!!

I don't argue the virus has changed. I argue that it is a seasonal virus. That means it is more virulent during certain seasons. This may be because people turn on the central heating in their houses therefore resulting in a lower relative humidity which means the virus hangs around in the air for longer.

Given that most infection is in the home anything that increases the viral load will make infection more serious and more likely to happen.

We are not certain about the mechanism, but it is the case that coronaviruses are generally seasonal.

You said "I dont think anyone is arguing that the virus is not becoming more infectious. Exactly why there can be debate about, but it is seasonal."

If the mechanism of the seasonality is "people turn on the central heating in their houses therefore resulting in a lower relative humidity which means the virus hangs around in the air for longer" then to describe that as the "virus becoming more infectious" is disingenuous, as it implies a change in the virus itself.

Scott.

[johnhemming]

If the mechanism of the seasonality is "people turn on the central heating in their houses therefore resulting in a lower relative humidity which means the virus hangs around in the air for longer" then to describe that as the "virus becoming more infectious" is disingenuous, as it implies a change in the virus itself.

I disagree. If people are more likely to be infected by a virus in a particular season then the virus is more infectious. That does not require the virus to be itself modified, but the process of infection is modified.

[johnhemming]

Looking at this for example

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/covid-19-wor ... er-weather

An international collaboration of researchers from Europe and China have found that temperature and humidity in the environment have an effect on the severity of COVID-19 symptoms. Comparing outcomes from more than 40,000 COVID-19 patients over the course of the pandemic suggests that the disease is more severe in colder months than warmer ones, and that dry indoor air may encourage the spread of the disease.

[XFool]

I'm done.

As I said, in accepting my knowledge is incomplete, I am happy and prepared to read a diverse range of pieces on this subject. You claimed not to have read beyond the 16th word.

To explain this further...

Reading "a diverse range of pieces on this subject" is OK, but how "diverse"? There are pieces online arguing that COVID-19 is a "hoax" by the 'Powers That Be' supported by 'The Mainstream Media'. Others claim to 'prove' the coronavirus is a Chinese "biological weapon".

Presumably most here would quickly dismiss such articles as nonsense and likely not even bother to seriously read them. So there is a line that needs to be crossed for everyone in evaluating the worth of any source of information. People differ where they draw that line - some dismiss all MSM and only believe 'alternative' explanations!

I confess to being very conventional, so require a pretty strict source of 'authority' before I pay much attention. The problems with that Lockdown Sceptic site come very quickly. Why is it even called that? It's telling you something straightaway, at least it is me. Then the subtitles, then that Mark Twain line - Dr. Yeardon quoted it, he must have intended it to mean something.

From what I have seen (e.g. Barrington Delaration), and usually is the case, the 'sceptic' case in this matter - as in most - has a fairly predictable 'political' angle. We need to look at things from more than one point of view, yes. But listen to the 'professional sceptic'? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks... That's good enough for me.

One has to decide these things for oneself.

[XFool]

I haven't the slightest idea, having no expertise or knowledge on the matter.

The only things I know are that it was a novel virus, presumably therefore nobody had any previous exposure to it. So 100% seemed a pretty sensible starting assumption. Of course, in the nature of things, some people would prove more susceptible and others less so.

You didn't read the article you're debating about. That's not a good look. The above is one of the two central points addressed by the author.

But I'm not debating the contents of that article - as you say, I haven't read it - because I have not got confidence in the author!

[johnhemming]

But I'm not debating the contents of that article - as you say, I haven't read it - because I have not got confidence in the author!

If you so trust the government on the question of Susceptibility that you decide to take it as a matter of faith and decide not to read anything that challenges that or tries to suggest it may be wrong then so be it.

[langley59]

There are pieces online arguing that COVID-19 is a "hoax" by the 'Powers That Be' supported by 'The Mainstream Media'.

Whether its a hoax or not there's no denying its being used to usher in the Great Reset/4th Industrial Revolution...and these ideas were floated well before covid came along.

By the way its Yeadon not Yeardon.

[XFool]

But I'm not debating the contents of that article - as you say, I haven't read it - because I have not got confidence in the author!

If you so trust the government on the question of Susceptibility that you decide to take it as a matter of faith and decide not to read anything that challenges that or tries to suggest it may be wrong then so be it.

I'm certainly not going to read "anything".

Then again, as an ordinary member of the public wrt this matter, I have no inherent way of evaluating the science. So reading 'alternative' versions is not particularly fruitful. So yes, I trust SAGE and go "with the science". If asked to evaluate an 'alternative' I am going to be very heavily swayed by first impressions of their authority and my interpretation of their agenda.

I was!

[XFool]

There are pieces online arguing that COVID-19 is a "hoax" by the 'Powers That Be' supported by 'The Mainstream Media'.

Whether its a hoax or not there's no denying its being used to usher in the Great Reset/4th Industrial Revolution...and these ideas were floated well before covid came along.

Yesssss...

And don't I know it!

By the way its Yeadon not Yeardon.

Thanks for the correction.

[johnhemming]

I was!

I would agree that the language used frequently on the lockdown sceptics site is not helpful although I did not see that in this particular article.

I do think the article is worth reading it makes the points I have made here about susceptibility, but with better sourcing.