Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

“The base line” sounds quite woolly, OB.

Not like you to have an unclear definition to pin your hopes against. Is that a baseline of 200 deaths a day? Hospitals cancelling routine appointments? The working from home brigade not saving Pret?

The base line of new infections was what I was referring to, the base line being 0. As you must know, I was referring to the graphs I posted earlier.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The base line of new infections was what I was referring to, the base line being 0. As you must know, I was referring to the graphs I posted earlier.

Zero new infections?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

There’s a "brave"* prediction…

I don't think anyone on this thread that has made predictions has faired well, myself definitely included.

I don't think anyone in the whole wider national debate, that has made a prediction, has faired well either....including politicians, CMO's, both flavours of Sage and the media.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Zero new infections?

I said ‘close to the base line’. It’s the base line that indicates 0 infections.

Do you deliberately misread my posts or are you speed reading?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't think anyone on this thread that has made predictions has faired well, myself definitely included.

I don't think anyone in the whole wider national debate, that has made a prediction, has faired well either....including politicians, CMO's, both flavours of Sage and the media.

There’s a massive difference however between wishful thinking (it’ll go away by itself), ideologically driven analysis against state intervention (the Spectator having us reaching herd immunity every month or so) at all costs, and some who are making best effort analysis without ulterior motives.

All predictions are based on underlying assumptions that are rarely communicated by the media. Nobody goes back to ascertain what went well (or what didn’t) in any given model - it just gets dismissed within the binary of being right or wrong.

One model being held up recently as a positive outcome of where we are headed has the important caveat of people voluntarily restricting their own behaviour and contacts for a further year. Again this isn’t binary “hiding under the stairs” or acting like it’s 2019 - if the vast majority of people plant themselves somewhere on the spectrum between the two that has wider economic implications for where and how much consumers spend.

One model of doom uses 2019 behaviour. Something that simply isn’t credible against a backdrop of tens of thousands of infections per day.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I said ‘close to the base line’. It’s the base line that indicates 0 infections.

Do you deliberately misread my posts or are you speed reading?

So it’s entirely subjective. It could be 1,000 cases, it could be 30,000 cases. As long it’s relatively flat.

[1andrew1]

Some good news

Pfizer's new COVID pill cuts hospitalisation or death by 89%, trial results indicate

The results appear to surpass those seen with Merck & Co Inc's pill Molnupiravir, which was shown last month to halve the likelihood of dying or needing hospital treatment for COVID-19.

Full trial data is not yet available from either company.

Pfizer plans to submit the interim trial results to the US Food and Drug Administration as part of an emergency use application.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/med...cid=entnewsntp

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Some good news

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/med...cid=entnewsntp

Brilliant, although you would be disappointed if an antiviral designed to fight covid didn’t perform better than one designed to fight a different respiratory illness that isn’t even caused by the same class of virus. It’s remarkable that Molnupiravir works at all really, but just as well because this one is still going to be a good few months away from widespread availability.

Biomedical science is where it’s all happening right now though isn’t it. So many remarkable achievements in such a short time.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Oh, I’ve read the posts, jfman. That’s where the hyperbole lurks.

I look forward to your words of wisdom when the number of infections decline near to the base line by December/January.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The base line of new infections was what I was referring to, the base line being 0. As you must know, I was referring to the graphs I posted earlier.

Just to confirm (as I don’t want to misinterpret/misunderstand what you’re saying) - are you predicting that by December, or January at the latest, the number of new COVID infections daily will be just above zero?

(And to avoid further confusion/misinterpretation, what is "just above zero" - 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 per day?)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Brilliant, although you would be disappointed if an antiviral designed to fight covid didn’t perform better than one designed to fight a different respiratory illness that isn’t even caused by the same class of virus. It’s remarkable that Molnupiravir works at all really, but just as well because this one is still going to be a good few months away from widespread availability.

Biomedical science is where it’s all happening right now though isn’t it. So many remarkable achievements in such a short time.

Wonderful seeing all these great treatments and vaccines developed or in the pipeline.

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I said ‘close to the base line’. It’s the base line that indicates 0 infections.

Do you deliberately misread my posts or are you speed reading?

I suspect you might find it easier going on this forum if you were a bit more specific with your predictions.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So it’s entirely subjective. It could be 1,000 cases, it could be 30,000 cases. As long it’s relatively flat.

Look at the graphs, why don’t you?

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Just to confirm (as I don’t want to misinterpret/misunderstand what you’re saying) - are you predicting that by December, or January at the latest, the number of new COVID infections daily will be just above zero?

(And to avoid further confusion/misinterpretation, what is "just above zero" - 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 per day?)

It’s not my prediction. It’s the scientists’ own modelling. I have already provided the graphs.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I suspect you might find it easier going on this forum if you were a bit more specific with your predictions.

Another one - it’s not my prediction!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Look at the graphs, why don’t you?

Another one - it’s not my prediction!

I look forward to your words of wisdom when the number of infections decline near to the base line by December/January.

So are you aligning with the prediction or aren’t you?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So are you aligning with the prediction or aren’t you?

For God’s sake, jfman! This has nothing to do with whether I am ‘aligning with the prediction’. It was you who accused those of us who were saying no more restrictions were necessary of ‘hoping for the best’. Once again, you are twisting this into a completely different argument.

It is not a case of hoping for the best at all. The justification for taking no further action is that the modelling suggests a sharp decline in the infection rate during November/December, and the current number of infections is also well within that modelling. So yes, the modelling is a good basis to work on.

So, I say again, where is your justification for imposing more measures now, unless of course you are ‘hoping for the worst’?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

For God’s sake, jfman! It was you who accused those of us who were saying no more restrictions were necessary of ‘hoping for the best’. Once again, you are twisting this into a completely different argument.

It is not a case of hoping for the best at all. The justification for taking no further action is that the modelling suggests a sharp decline in the infection rate during November/December, and the current number of infections is also well within that modelling.

So, I say again, where is your justification for imposing more measures now, unless of course you are ‘hoping for the worst’?

Old Boy you are going around in circles all by yourself. You responded to me with a meaningless post that didn’t actually address the point I was making, now you seem to be attempting to make a half baked prediction that you don’t wish to be pinned down to in the long run.

If you have nothing further to add - like what that figure will be, what level of hospitalisations it gives, deaths etc. or offer your own opinion on what level would warrant concern then I can only presume you’re at your own baseline of ideologically supporting no restrictions regardless of outcomes. Which is fine - just don’t try to tart it up as anything insightful or giving due consideration to reality.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy you are going around in circles all by yourself. You responded to me with a meaningless post that didn’t actually address the point I was making, now you seem to be attempting to make a half baked prediction that you don’t wish to be pinned down to in the long run.

If you have nothing further to add - like what that figure will be, what level of hospitalisations it gives, deaths etc. or offer your own opinion on what level would warrant concern then I can only presume you’re at your own baseline of ideologically supporting no restrictions regardless of outcomes. Which is fine - just don’t try to tart it up as anything insightful or giving due consideration to reality.

Unfortunately, once again you are not listening. This is the scientists’ own model, and of course it is sensible to be guided by that.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Unfortunately, once again you are not listening. This is the scientists’ own model, and of course it is sensible to be guided by that.

If you can’t commit to backing your own position Old Boy I don’t know how you expect to persuade anyone else of your wishful thinking.