Coronavirus (OLD)

[Carth]

It did go away in the summer . . well that's what it looks like in all the graphs I've seen

Now it's back - apparently - depending on which experts you listen to and how they skew the data

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The good news is the key decision makers have more evidence available to them than just Oldham and can make better decisions than you would by playing fast and loose during exponential spread.

Sky reporting lockdown 2 could start next week in England. Clearly the alarm bells are ringing in Westminster.

funny how it's also those "key decision makers" that produced the report you have just rubbished???????????

Originally Posted by Carth

It did go away in the summer . . well that's what it looks like in all the graphs I've seen

Now it's back - apparently - depending on which experts you listen to and how they skew the data

It lessened, but it didn’t go away (because if it had, it wouldn’t still be here...).

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

funny how it's also those "key decision makers" that produced the report you have just rubbished???????????

It supported their decision at the time. It’s somewhat naive of you to simply take everything Government says at face value and there’s never an ulterior motive.

They knew what they were doing until supplies of PPE were secured. They acknowledged they would revisit the matter at a later date, unsurprisingly, to move into line with the actual evidence around masks.

Note I’m not criticising their decision to do so, to tell the public it’d have created demand for masks from idiots everywhere.

There was clearly much more nuance to the message than you give the Government credit for.

[papa smurf]

Well the good news is you can't catch it at work or school,so if your planning a party have it at work or in a school,stay safe

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

It supported their decision at the time. It’s somewhat naive of you to simply take everything Government says at face value and there’s never an ulterior motive.

They knew what they were doing until supplies of PPE were secured. They acknowledged they would revisit the matter at a later date, unsurprisingly, to move into line with the actual evidence around masks.

Note I’m not criticising their decision to do so, to tell the public it’d have created demand for masks from idiots everywhere.

There was clearly much more nuance to the message than you give the Government credit for.

Wheras I don't agree that a use of a mask will stop transmission I certainly think it will reduce it.

You remember the link I gave you to evidence based view on covid that you barely watched and disparaged as just graph manipulation and not peer reviewed? Had you watched further T cell pre-immunity was also covered.

What are your thoughts on this peer reviewed BMJ article?

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/14/g...onth-old-firm/

Boris Johnson’s Government awarded a whopping £122 million contract for the supply of gowns to a company that had only been in existence for one month, Byline Times can reveal.

New documents show that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) granted the multi-million-pound contract to PPE Medpro Limited on 25 June, just 44 days after the firm had been incorporated.

The company’s website claims that it is “a specialist manufacturer of personal protective equipment”. However, its founding directors appear to have experience in other fields.

The firm was set up by Anthony Page and Voirrey Coole, both of whom work in fiduciary services – private trust and wealth management.

Both Page and Coole work for Knox House Trust, a corporate wealth and investment management firm that is based on the Isle of Man, which is considered to be an offshore tax haven.

Their website is "interesting" (as in "there's not much on it"), with some videos in the "Latest News" section that cover a two day period from June 16th 2020 to June 18th 2020 (but nothing else)...

Strangely enough, their Sales Office address is 85 Portland Street, which is a "virtual office" with 7,849 companies listed there...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

It did go away in the summer . . well that's what it looks like in all the graphs I've seen

Now it's back - apparently - depending on which experts you listen to and how they skew the data

You need to hold the graphs the other way up! Like me, it didn't go away fully in the Summer.

---------- Post added at 15:44 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/14/g...onth-old-firm/

Their website is "interesting" (as in "there's not much on it"), with some videos in the "Latest News" section that cover a two day period from June 16th 2020 to June 18th 2020 (but nothing else)...

Strangely enough, their Sales Office address is 85 Portland Street, which is a "virtual office" with 7,849 companies listed there...

From the same school of unusual procurement that buys ferry services from non-ferry operators.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You need to hold the graphs the other way up! Like me, it didn't go away fully in the Summer.

Altered my monitor resolution to 50 x 2000 . . . graphs look quite different now

[pip08456]

There is also this report about testing and false positives.

https://www.hdruk.ac.uk/projects/false-positives/

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You need to hold the graphs the other way up! Like me, it didn't go away fully in the Summer.

---------- Post added at 15:44 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------


From the same school of unusual procurement that buys ferry services from non-ferry operators.

There's some graphs for you here.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Wheras I don't agree that a use of a mask will stop transmission I certainly think it will reduce it.

You remember the link I gave you to evidence based view on covid that you barely watched and disparaged as just graph manipulation and not peer reviewed? Had you watched further T cell pre-immunity was also covered.

What are your thoughts on this peer reviewed BMJ article?

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

No-one has ever claimed masks to be 100% effective, or else it’d be a case of masking everyone up for six weeks and getting on with our lives.

Nobody has either challenged that there could be more to immunity than simply antibodies, and the notion of pre-existing immunity on some level in some populations has raised itself before.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-dark-matter

However, what you’ll find is that I scoffed at the frequently touted notion that somehow, by magic, the experience of other countries won’t be replicated here or that the January-March trend is generally the trend for unmitigated growth unless there is evidence we are at or near the herd immunity threshold.

I think as we are approaching lockdown two we can all accept as fact there’s clearly plenty of further opportunities for onward transmission of the virus within the population as a whole. We have accelerating, not decelerating growth that would be associated with reaching the threshold.

---------- Post added at 15:57 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Altered my monitor resolution to 50 x 2000 . . . graphs look quite different now

I can’t see a graph I just have

START INTERNET EXPLORER 15:57

Rotate that at 90 degrees I realised I messed up the horizontal and vertical.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

No-one has ever claimed masks to be 100% effective, or else it’d be a case of masking everyone up for six weeks and getting on with our lives.

Nobody has either challenged that there could be more to immunity than simply antibodies, and the notion of pre-existing immunity on some level in some populations has raised itself before.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-dark-matter

However, what you’ll find is that I scoffed at the frequently touted notion that somehow, by magic, the experience of other countries won’t be replicated here or that the January-March trend is generally the trend for unmitigated growth unless there is evidence we are at or near the herd immunity threshold.

I think as we are approaching lockdown two we can all accept as fact there’s clearly plenty of further opportunities for onward transmission of the virus within the population as a whole. We have accelerating, not decelerating growth that would be associated with reaching the threshold.

---------- Post added at 15:57 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------



I can’t see a graph I just have

START INTERNET EXPLORER 15:57

Rotate that at 90 degrees I realised I messed up the horizontal and vertical.

Less than distraction from T-cell pre-immunity which has been peer reviewed unlike a report in ther Groaniad.
For instance..

You need models that can allow for all possible states, and assess which ones matter for shaping the pandemic’s trajectory over time.

and

In my field, neurobiology, we call the approach dynamic causal modelling (DCM). We can’t see brain states directly, but we can infer them given brain imaging data. In fact, we have pushed that idea even further. We think the brain may be doing its own dynamic causal modelling, reducing its uncertainty about the causes of the data the senses feed to it. We call this the free energy principle. But whether you’re talking about a pandemic or a brain, the essential problem is the same – you’re trying to understand a complex system that changes over time. In that sense, I’m not doing anything new. The data is generated by Covid-19 patients rather than neurons, but otherwise it’s just another day at the office.

and

To date our predictions have been accurate to within a day or two, so there is a predictive validity to our models that the conventional ones lack.

Finally

For each duration we can calculate the probability that a second wave will emerge, and when. It’s early days for this work, and I look forward with genuine excitement to new data on immunity becoming available, now that reliable antibody tests exist.

Not one mention of a peer reviewed existance of T-Cell pre-immunity. If that is not included in the data model then the model will be flawed. Nor is false positive testing results mentioned which can scew the model data further. Not forgetting the article is from 4 mths ago and a lot has been learned since.

[jfman]

I’m at a loss as to what your point is, pip? That we are at herd immunity? That we aren’t in a second wave?

These are palpably untrue and we wouldn’t be going into a second lockdown if they were. Unless someone can demonstrate what’s different between February and now the Government can only follow the evidence base that led to lockdown the first time.

[pip08456]

Palpably untrue? On what basis?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Palpably untrue? On what basis?

The best set of figures available from the Government, that will be an underrepresentation based on the number of tests outstanding.

If there was any evidence at all, absolutely any, that the situation was under control we wouldn’t be staring down the barrel of a second lockdown.