Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[XFool]

...I have a feeling this, in some ways, echoes an old argument in medical science, from the beginnings of germ theory. I cannot quite remember the terminology, something like Germ vs Soma(?), Germ vs Substrate(?). Though here it is about virus vs population. Obviously they do both matter.

For anyone interested, I think this refers:

Pasteur vs Béchamp: The Germ Theory Debate

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/02/pasteur-vs-bechamp-the-germ-theory-debate/

[dealtn]

It can be both though.

The environment can affect the virus. Consider the temperature spectrum (particularly the extremes), and others such as the presence of acid/alkali. I think the presence of light also reduces the "half-life" of a virus infected surface (by acting on the virus). There is more daylight (generally) in summer.

None of those sound particularly significant for this particular virus in this particular year though. Cases were picking up in September, when large parts of the country were still seeing very similar weather to that in the summer.

Scott.

My point is that environment plays its role on both the virus, and the behaviours of the (potential) hosts, so you can't attribute things solely to one of those, in discussion, or policy response.

I am not a scientist, but to me, I would think even relatively minor changes may have an impact and it is too easy to be dismissive of any particular change.

The R number is often quoted as just over 1. Regardless of what this means in terms of how quickly the pandemic grows if you consider what this means you find that an infected person, despite being "infectious" and the potential source of transmission for maybe 7-10 days, only in fact (on average) passes this on to a single other person. So if that transmission rate is so low, compared to all the possible encounters that infected person might make, it seems to me that even small marginal changes in the environment can have an effect, be that on the virus itself, or the behaviour of the (potential) host.

[GoSeigen]

Sheesh - someone should tell him it would have happened anyway!

Ferguson, it would have happened anyway, as some of us have been saying here for weeks. The slowdown has nothing to do with the lockdown. You need to go back to the basics of epidemiology. Step one: take a look at a log chart of deaths in the UK. The wild, unpredictable spread of Covid ended in May, if not before; by July it was clearly over.

GS

Yeah.

Perhaps I was over estimating the audience and should have used SarCAStic FoNT?

The lock down has already saved lives; perhaps you don't care...
but I've got this problem where I can't consider anyone's life as less important as mine...
... that's a good part of why I detest racists and this shoving yer granny under the bus policy is as offensive as thinking it doesn't matter because "BAME" or whatever.

-sd

I got the sarcasm 100%. However many a true word spoken in jest -- sarcasm being the lowest form of wit notwithstanding. Hence the straight bat in reply.

Putting the metaphors to the side, lockdown is not the only tool available, it is just the most draconian and needless at this time. I remember right back in March when the first lockdown happened and I asked in all seriousness "What exactly is the lockdown for" I got an "Oh FFS!!" in response as if it was blindingly obvious to all but a complete fool -- yet here we are eight months later with a second lockdown. Now you say it is to save a few lives. Really? That's what I reluctantly concluded about the first lockdown based on the following premises:

1. We were utterly unprepared either socially or in the NHS to deal with the pandemic.
2. It had just been discovered and practically nothing was known about it.
3. It was spreading at an alarming rate, still in its exponential phase and it was practically impossible to tell how many people were already infected or would be infected.
4. It was almost completely unknown how deadly the virus was.
5. The data so far indicated that it could potentially be very deadly.

However, none of those 5 points is true any more. The first lockdown had a decent chance of saving many lives especially if Covid was as bad as feared. So I gritted my teeth and supported it despite the atrocious attack on personal liberty that it represented.

Given none of the above are true what exactly is there to justify this lockdown? Don't say to save a few lives. There is no strong argument to show that will be the case, just supposition, and besides, there are many ways to save a few lives -- from suicide, from heart disease, cancer etc as well as CV -- why don't SD and the other (baby-boomer) lockdown supporters focus on those? Is it because they believe other people should be thrown under the bus -- as he so crudely put it?? That was a low, ad-hominem argument: trying to discredit the other person's point by making him look callous. The fact is, over the months since the first lockdown a huge amount of learning has taken place and there are many effective ways to tackle the remainder of this pandemic that don't involve trampling all over other people's liberties.

There's a lot of not seeing the wood for the trees on these Coronavirus threads. Some, like Clitheroekid get it. Others are so busy studying the minutiae and avoiding even reading opposing views for bizarre reasons like "it's in the wrong newspaper" or "it's put forward by someone I don't respect" that they have completely lost sight of the big picture. One example is a poster who is creating fancy little models which at the start of Nov predicted 10,000 deaths per week by the end of Nov from a "second wave" while the actual figure is likely to be a quarter as much. So he is basing his view on this virus on a model which in two months suggests between ten and twenty times as many deaths as is actually going to be the case!

The big picture is this: The virus is not nearly as deadly as appeared at first, there was only one wave, which is now dying out, the high death rate initially was likely caused by policy errors, complete ignorance about the virus and its treatment, and harvesting; the virus now is just one of many similarly serious ailments which deserve to be treated on a par with CV; far too much of our focus is going on this thing that will be forgotten in a couple of years, while we might have to live for years or decades with the consequences of stuff we are ignoring, like Brexit (which promises to be a nightmare in the new year, in the absence of some sort of diplomatic miracle) and the disastrous effect this nonsense is having on our children's development and education.

The question is still unanswered in my mind: what was this lockdown for in specific detail? "Oh FFS!" is not an answer...


GS

[GoSeigen]

To me, if the virus is more "virulent" that must be intrinsic to the virus. So, it has mutated to become intrinsically more (or alternatively, less) virulent.

That, however, means it is not really worth trying to debate things with you. If you decide you want meanings to be other than those commonly accepted meanings in the dictionary then you can continue to change meanings to fit the facts. I am personally quite happy to accept the meaning of the word "virulence" as defined in the dictionary and substantiate that.

However, it is a waste of time discussing alternative Humpty Dumpty type meanings

I was trying to avoid exactly that problem!

Your "dictionary definition" makes no reference to mechanism. Yet it sounds to me as if you are going to make an argument that depends on mechanism, so we need to know precisely what you do mean by virulent in this context.

<OT>He tried the same trick with preference shares a couple of years back, using a dictionary definition (the one out of several that suited him) instead of the correct one laid out in the preference share documentation. Good politician LOL. </OT>

GS

[Itsallaguess]

There's a lot of not seeing the wood for the trees on these Coronavirus threads. Some, like Clitheroekid get it. Others are so busy studying the minutiae and avoiding even reading opposing views for bizarre reasons like "it's in the wrong newspaper" or "it's put forward by someone I don't respect" that they have completely lost sight of the big picture.

One example is a poster who is creating fancy little models which at the start of Nov predicted 10,000 deaths per week by the end of Nov from a "second wave" while the actual figure is likely to be a quarter as much.

So he is basing his view on this virus on a model which in two months suggests between ten and twenty times as many deaths as is actually going to be the case!

To be fair GS - wasn't that an initial prediction of second-wave deaths based on a 'no-further-escalation of protocols' scenario?

Given that we *did* then have the introduction of *severely escalated* protocols, in the form of the 5th November second-shutdown, wouldn't we fully expect the actual outcome to be considerably different from any original 'no-further-escalation-of-protocols' figures due to that second England-wide shutdown being imposed?

You mentioned trying to play with a straight bat, but aren't you in danger of ball-tampering a little here, by not taking the above into account in your criticism....?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Itsallaguess]

There's a lot of not seeing the wood for the trees on these Coronavirus threads. Some, like Clitheroekid get it. Others are so busy studying the minutiae and avoiding even reading opposing views for bizarre reasons like "it's in the wrong newspaper" or "it's put forward by someone I don't respect" that they have completely lost sight of the big picture.

One example is a poster who is creating fancy little models which at the start of Nov predicted 10,000 deaths per week by the end of Nov from a "second wave" while the actual figure is likely to be a quarter as much.

So he is basing his view on this virus on a model which in two months suggests between ten and twenty times as many deaths as is actually going to be the case!

To be fair GS - wasn't that an initial prediction of second-wave deaths based on a 'no-further-escalation of protocols' scenario?

Given that we *did* then have the introduction of *severely escalated* protocols, in the form of the 5th November second-shutdown, wouldn't we fully expect the actual outcome to be considerably different from any original 'no-further-escalation-of-protocols' figures due to that second England-wide shutdown being imposed?

You mentioned trying to play with a straight bat, but aren't you in danger of ball-tampering a little here, by not taking the above into account in your criticism....?

And to help show that this is the case, here's the original '10,000 second-wave deaths prediction' post that I think you're referring to -

The important quoted passage underneath the chart on the following linked post is -

"If the data continues to follow this exponential curve, then in a further 40 days there will be around 10,000 deaths per week - i.e. as high as the April peak."

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=22737&start=840#p348987

The bit in bold and underlined is very important GS, because the above post was made on October 19th, a full 17 days before the second England-wide full lock-down occurred on November 5th...

The data didn't continue to follow the predicted '10,000 deaths' exponential curve because the England-wide second-lockdown was brought in to prevent that very outcome...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

He tried the same trick with preference shares a couple of years back, using a dictionary definition (the one out of several that suited him) instead of the correct one laid out in the preference share documentation. Good politician LOL.

I have just checked the CU Memo and Arts (15/3/90) and I don't see a definition of "irredeemable". What definition are you referring to (I have kept copies of all the relevant documentation.)

I don't think referring to dictionaries for definitions is a "trick". That is why we have dictionaries so that we can resolve uncertainties as to what words mean.

This Court of Appeal case is one where a dictionary was used to determine the meaning of a word
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1016.html

If there were any real doubt as to the ordinary relevant meaning of the word, I can see no reason why one should not turn to dictionaries to dispel it. This is a well established technique of statutory construction, recognized in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (at section 24.23): "Dictionaries may be consulted to ascertain the meaning of terms …".

[XFool]

Now on LBC Toby (Tony?) Young from The Spectator banging on about living in a "Keystone Cops" society, etc. etc. wrt Facebook(?) censoring Prof Carl Heneghan over "incorrect" (false?) information in his Spectator article about masks being of no use.

BUT!

WE KNOW on here (if you were paying attention) that Spectator article is erroneous:

1. Factually incorrect ("3000" participants vs 6000)

2. Misleading - "See the English translation of the final paragraph from the Danish report"

viewtopic.php?p=358268#p358268

[zico]

The question is still unanswered in my mind: what was this lockdown for in specific detail? "Oh FFS!" is not an answer...
GS

The aim of lockdown is to reduce the number of interactions between people, so infections will reduce, and lives will be saved, between now and mid-March (when the vaccine is likely to have been rolled out to the most vulnerable groups - assuming government messaging is correct).
The fundamentals haven't changed between the first wave and this wave - if there are too many interactions between people, infections increase more or less exponentially, and will overwhelm the health service unless drastic action is taken - like lockdowns. If the health service gets overwhelmed, the death rate from Covid would increase 4 to 5 fold.

As I see it, the problem is that even when people know what they should do, there's too high a percentage of people not doing the right thing, so you need lockdown to close places to limit the opportunities for people to meet other households and spread the virus. If we had a society with enough people following the rules and being careful, we wouldn't need tiers and lockdowns. But we haven't, so here we are.

Another way to look at it is by comparing measures to suppress Covid growth with cancer treatment. We all know it's very important to catch and treat cancer early because cancer cells double every so many days - so exponential growth. Doubling rate of lung cancer cells is every 176 days, for breast cancer it's 252 days. Covid cases in the UK population were doubling every 8 days before the recent measures (tiers & lockdown) to suppress transmission. People wouldn't say it's too early to start chemotherapy if they were still feeling fit and well, so the same logic applies to anti-Covid measures.

[XFool]

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Mis-representation of research purpose
Members of the general public are referencing this research as a battle cry that communities do not need to wear masks in public. After reading the entire article, I ascertained that telling the general public to stop wearing masks was not the purpose or outcome of this research.
During these tumultuous times it might be a moral imperative to include some type of explanation with this research. Very few individuals outside of the medical profession will take the time to thoroughly read the article and analyze the outcomes.

Sincerely,

B***** M*****, Ph.D.
Unassociated at this time while caring for my husband with end stage renal disease and Alzheimer's. I depend on the kindness (and myself) of others to wear a mask.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Heneghan

Professor Carl James Heneghan (born January 1968) is a British general practitioner physician, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine...

<controversial>

Ought he to be?

</controversial>

[swill453]

As I see it, the problem is that even when people know what they should do, there's too high a percentage of people not doing the right thing, so you need lockdown to close places to limit the opportunities for people to meet other households and spread the virus. If we had a society with enough people following the rules and being careful, we wouldn't need tiers and lockdowns. But we haven't, so here we are.

Agreed. It's quite a tragedy that if absolutely everybody followed the simple Hands Face Space mantra to the letter, the virus would be gone completely within weeks.

Scott.

[zico]

As I see it, the problem is that even when people know what they should do, there's too high a percentage of people not doing the right thing, so you need lockdown to close places to limit the opportunities for people to meet other households and spread the virus. If we had a society with enough people following the rules and being careful, we wouldn't need tiers and lockdowns. But we haven't, so here we are.

Agreed. It's quite a tragedy that if absolutely everybody followed the simple Hands Face Space mantra to the letter, the virus would be gone completely within weeks.

Scott.

Scientic knowledge has moved on and the Hands Face Space mantra is now out of date, so the overwhelming majority of infections are spread through the air, so the mantra should be something like this.
- Don't Meet Other People, but if you must,
- Meet Them Outdoors and Keep Your Distance, but if it has to be indoors,
- Wear a Mask and Keep It Short
- Wash Your Hands, Don't Touch Your Face.
Not as catchy by far, but more in line with what people should be doing.

[tjh290633]

Using the Dictionaries found on the internet it cannot be controlled because it cannot be stopped from spreading. It can be influenced, however, but it cannot be limited.

When I turn my bath taps on, and the hot and cold water are running, is the bath itself influencing the spread of the water, or is it limiting it?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Depends how long you leave them on for.....

And if you put the plug in.

TJH

[XFool]

When I turn my bath taps on, and the hot and cold water are running, is the bath itself influencing the spread of the water, or is it limiting it?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Depends how long you leave them on for.....

And if you put the plug in.

This has just turned into one of those old, school maths problems.

[Clitheroekid]

There's an interesting article here about a passenger on a flight from Dubai to New Zealand who had a clear PCR test before flying but was nevertheless positive and infected at least 4 other people on the flight - https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2 ... =hp_travel

It occurred to me when having my test before flying to Cyprus that I could very easily just have pretended to take it. I was given the kit and left to self-administer the test, with no supervision. I could therefore just have taken the swab out of the bag and put it straight into the sample bag, thereby guaranteeing me a negative result.

I wouldn’t have done so, even if it had occurred to me, but I’m sure there are plenty of people who are either desperate to fly or who are simply dishonest who have done this. Maybe one of them was on this plane.

[Mike4]

Depends how long you leave them on for.....

And if you put the plug in.

This has just turned into one of those old, school maths problems.

As in, perhaps...

"If you turn the bath taps full on and they fill the bath at 3 gallons a minute, and the plug drains it at 2 gallons a minute, and the volume of the bath is 40 gallons, how much does this affect your chances of catching COVID-19?"

[XFool]

There's an interesting article here about a passenger on a flight from Dubai to New Zealand who had a clear PCR test before flying but was nevertheless positive and infected at least 4 other people on the flight - https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2 ... =hp_travel

So, a false negative?

Funnily enough, 'alternative explanation' people always seem to be banging on about "false positives". Never seem to mention false negatives.

[XFool]

And if you put the plug in.

This has just turned into one of those old, school maths problems.

As in, perhaps...

"If you turn the bath taps full on and they fill the bath at 3 gallons a minute, and the plug drains it at 2 gallons a minute, and the volume of the bath is 40 gallons, how much does this affect your chances of catching COVID-19?"

Yeah. That sounds about right.

[johnhemming]

There's an interesting article here about a passenger on a flight from Dubai to New Zealand who had a clear PCR test before flying but was nevertheless positive and infected at least 4 other people on the flight - https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2 ... =hp_travel

So, a false negative?

Funnily enough, 'alternative explanation' people always seem to be banging on about "false positives". Never seem to mention false negatives.

You may not notice it, but people mention both false positive and false negatives.

Elon Musk had four tests in one day recently two positive and two negative.

[XFool]

Funnily enough, 'alternative explanation' people always seem to be banging on about "false positives". Never seem to mention false negatives.

You may not notice it, but people mention both false positive and false negatives.

Elon Musk had four tests in one day recently two positive and two negative.

So HE says.