Coronavirus

[FTOF]

15 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

This became very apparent fairly early on.

Hardly a week has gone past without some expert/scientist coming up with their version of events.

No wonder there have been so many mistakes made by governments and the public don't know what the feck to do. 

Yeah, it's a "No shit Sherlock" scenario, pointing out the inconsistencies.

As you say, it only reinforces what most of us have been saying from the start with regards to understanding the nature of the virus itself.

 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, FTOF said:

My wife was talking to her friend, who has been seconded by NHS England to re-write their Covid strategy (yes,. they do have one ).

She has had to sift through all of the scientific research on Covid and she's finding it very difficult, as there are so many conflicting scientific studies on Covid and lots of gaps in knowledge, regarding the life cycle of virus.

 

 

Well duh! It's a brand new virus which will take at least two years to fully understand.

In the meantime, scientists will disagree with each other. That is exactly how science works.

How are people still not getting this?

 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

This became very apparent fairly early on.

Hardly a week has gone past without some expert/scientist coming up with their version of events.

No wonder there have been so many mistakes made by governments and the public don't know what the feck to do. 

 

The real lesson here is that the path to overcoming new viruses like covid is, by necessity a political one rather than a science one. Politicians should take advice from science, because let's face it nobody else has a fecking clue, but Scientists should be nowhere near the public eye because people like you expect certainty when it can't be given.

Politicians are trying to hide behind scientists and too many scientists are getting lured by the glamour of fame.

Between all of them, they are doing irrepairable damage to the reputation of science as a discipline.

It's absolutely infuriating to watch.

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

The real lesson here is that the path to overcoming new viruses like covid is, by necessity a political one rather than a science one. Politicians should take advice from science, because let's face it nobody else has a fecking clue, but Scientists should be nowhere near the public eye because people like you expect certainty when it can't be given.

Politicians are trying to hide behind scientists and too many scientists are getting lured by the glamour of fame.

Between all of them, they are doing irrepairable damage to the reputation of science as a discipline.

It's absolutely infuriating to watch.

And you do get infuriated rather easily. Never mind.. You are off to England on holiday soon. 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

I see sad cunts who are on ignore are mentioning me in posts.
Desperate attention seeking behaviour from the usual 2 f**kwits.

You're not missing anything.

One of them is obsessively posting manipulated statistics for some reason and the other is still wittering on about why he can't understand why science can't just give him the certainty he craves despite being repeatedly told why he can't have it.

[stlucifer]

3 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

 

I choose not to side with anybody but to educate myself and make up my own mind. 

The SAGE minutes quite clearly show that the “experts” that you have “sided” with advised against lockdown before Boris took the political decision to lockdown. They also advised against closing schools, stopping mass gatherings or wearing masks.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-sage-minutes

Scientists can’t even explain the seasonality of viruses despite looking at it “day in, day out” for hundreds of years.

Yet you believe they’ve suddenly figured out how to beat a seasonal virus in a matter of 6 months? 

The bit highlighted. So do I. But in doing so you need to be looking at the science. To do this you need to decide for yourself which scientific input you accept as correct. For me, not being an expert, I looked into the scientific advice and, on doing so, I accepted that the vast majority appear to be advising that lockdown was wise. I don't really know how you educated yourself. did you do a crash course in virology or did you do as I did and looked at the scientific advice and, contrary to me, decided you didn't agree with the majority?

[eastlandssaint]

https://news.stv.tv/section/scotland

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, eastlandssaint said:

https://news.stv.tv/section/scotland

Good news. 

[shull]

Edited June 28, 2020 by shull

[shull]

 

[St.Ricky]

Rise up OAP's!!! 

[Sue Denim]

Sweden has had no lockdown and operates as the control group.

Looking at the graphs below you can clearly see that mortality in Sweden this year is no different from any other.

There have been 46,655 deaths in Sweden this year compared with the 5 year average of 43,183.

This compares with 32,243 deaths in Scotland against the 5 year average of 27,766.

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Sue Denim

[Sue Denim]

The ONS and NRS publish their weekly stats tomorrow.

Below shows weekly excess deaths in Scotland, England and Sweden in 2020. I’ll update tomorrow. 
 

Note, the ONS and NRS have a timing difference of 3 days in publication of stats, explaining the difference in timing between Scotland and England below.
 

Total excess deaths in 2020 per million of population:

England 950

Scotland 821

Sweden 339

Total excess deaths in latest week per million of population:

England 10.7

Scotland 7.2

Sweden 4.1

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Sue Denim

[oaksoft]

34 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

Sweden has had no lockdown and operates as the control group.

Actually, it doesn't.

Just stop. You're embarassing yourself.

[Sue Denim]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Actually, it doesn't.

Just stop. You're embarassing yourself.

Actually, it does.

I think you’ve embarrassed yourself enough in this thread. 

[oaksoft]

1 minute ago, Sue Denim said:

Actually, it does.

I think you’ve embarrassed yourself enough in this thread. 

It's pretty obvious you don't know what constitutes a legitimate control group.

How do you account for the lack of randomisation for a start?

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by oaksoft

[Sue Denim]

Just now, oaksoft said:

It's pretty obvious you don't know what constitutes a legitimate control group.

 

Says the guy who had to ask me how to calculate compound interest, didn’t understand exponential growth and declared that dividends are not important. 

Please desist from your comedy. 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

Says the guy who had to ask me how to calculate compound interest, didn’t understand exponential growth and declared that dividends are not important. 

Please desist from your comedy. 

What the f**k are you wittering on about. It was Faraway who couldn't grasp what an exponential curve was you tit.

Was my question too difficult for you?

I'll try again.

How do you account for the lack of randomisation.

Edited June 29, 2020 by oaksoft

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

What the f**k are you wittering on about. It was Faraway who couldn't grasp what an exponential curve was you tit.

Was my question too difficult for you?

I'll try again.

How do you account for the lack of randomisation.

No it wasn't.

Faraway couldn't understand how you couldn't understand why your figures were obviously so far out and you couldn't see it.

Hope this helps. 😂

[oaksoft]

Just now, faraway saint said:

No it wasn't.

Faraway couldn't understand how you couldn't understand why your figures were obviously so far out and you couldn't see it.

Hope this helps. 😂

You and Andy should tour as a double act.

He could show a series of faked graphs and you could be the guy who chops and changes his mind every 5 minutes.

Oooh the numbers are up.

Oooh the numbers are down.

Oooh you can't compare with Sweden.

Oooh you should compare with Sweden.

Oooh the data is shite.

Oooh the data is OK to use cos it backs what I want it to say.

Ooooh it's the fecking flu.

Ooooh people are DYING you selfish bastards.

Ooooh the science isn't comforting me in the way I DEMAND that it must.

You are all over the place.

Exhausting to watch.

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

You and Andy should tour as a double act.

He could show a series of faked graphs and you could be the guy who chops and changes his mind every 5 minutes.

Oooh the numbers are up.

Oooh the numbers are down.

Oooh you can't compare with Sweden.

Oooh you should compare with Sweden.

Oooh the data is shite.

Oooh the data is OK to use cos it backs what I want it to say.

Ooooh it's the fecking flu.

Ooooh people are DYING you selfish bastards.

Ooooh the science isn't comforting me in the way I DEMAND that it must.

You are all over the place.

Exhausting to watch.

Your making a fool of yourself again. 

Be a man and admit you don't have a clue, it was only recently you were quite convinced the UK would havev 100,000 deaths by the end of the year. 

It's ok to be wrong, no need to resort to making shit up to cover up your inadequacy. 

[Sue Denim]

@oaksoft this graph is my own with the data for England taken from ONS, Scotland from NRS and Sweden from statista.com

 

[Sue Denim]

This graph is taken from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average

You can construct your own graph.

This compares countries in the Southern Hemisphere with the US

Mexico locked down 23 March

Peru locked down 15 March

Argentina locked down 20 March

Brazil didn’t lockdown

You can see quite clearly that the virus is spreading seasonally regardless of lockdown

Quite incredibly, these South American countries are coming out of lockdown right at the peak. They have no choice, they went into lockdown before seasonality began. 
 

Lockdown has been pointless

 

[Sue Denim]

Having proved conclusively that lockdown has saved no lives (in fact, has cost lives), how will deaths in Scotland in 2020 compare historically?

Here’s another of my fake graphs @oaksoft

Note - just because you don’t understand a graph @oaksoftmeans it’s fake. It just means that you’re stupid 😁
 

This shows deaths in Scotland for every year from 1974 to 2020.

2020 consists of all deaths so far plus the average of the last 5 years for the remaining weeks

COVID turned out not to be the plague after all. It turned out to be no more than a standard flu epidemic. 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Sue Denim

[bazil85]

3 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

Having proved conclusively that lockdown has saved no lives (in fact, has cost lives), how will deaths in Scotland in 2020 compare historically?

Here’s another of my fake graphs @oaksoft

Note - just because you don’t understand a graph @oaksoftmeans it’s fake. It just means that you’re stupid 😁
 

This shows deaths in Scotland for every year from 1974 to 2020.

2020 consists of all deaths so far plus the average of the last 5 years for the remaining weeks

COVID turned out not to be the plague after all. It turned out to be no more than a standard flu epidemic. 

 

Over half a million people have died globally with Covid19 registered, the number is likely far higher considering reporting. This is despite the vast majority of heavily impacted countries locking down which factually slows the spread. Half a million from a virus that didn't take hold in many countries until March/ April. The annual flu death rate is about half a million globally, there is no annual lockdown. Your logic is ridiculous, flawed and easily refutable.

All your graph shows is an argument for praising the Scottish government in their effective lockdown strategy. Are you willing to praise the Scottish government approach to stemming this virus in compared to... Oh I don't know Sweden? England? USA? Brazil? 

Every one of your arguments has crumbled before you (as we told you it would) as more and more about this virus became apparent.